If you want to compare 250lb weapons, then we can compare the SDB-I, SDB-II, and/or SPEAR cap III to AASM.
Well AASM isn’t a 250lb weapon but a 500lb weapon in its current form. I hope a 250lb version emerges though cause we need lower lethality weapons and range would be increase for SEAD work & others.
Yes, a Rafale should be able to carry 5 x 2,000lb AASMs. Of course since it would be carrying a 10,000lb bomb load, plus missiles, plus a T-pod, and would be relying on internal fuel… it better not have to carry them very far. (especially if you envision flying at low altitude)
When they order 2000lb AASMs, they might as well order CFTs to go with them. Already developed, flight tested & all the planes produced are CFT ready.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235850[/ATTACH]
So you can carry 5 2000lb weapons + 6500 kg of fuel. Bur I believe there is no use to carry as many, so 3 would be more than enough in most situations & that allows for another 3200 kg of fuel. 3 2000lb AASM + 9740 kg of fuel & there’s still room for 2 meteor and 4 mica.
As for the 2,000lb AASM’s standoff range, what is it? “Significant,” is rather a flexible term. I am having a hard time imagining a 2,000lb munition getting much out of a rocket booster.
Probably much less than the 500lb variant, that’s for sure. I don’t really see a reason to develop a 2000lb version. 1000lb yes, I think it would be nice.
A 2,000l fuel tank holds ~1600kg of fuel. A Rafale with just a centerline tank would have 4,700kg (internal) + 1600kg (external) for a total of 6,300kg.
With undeveloped 2000lb AASM, I guess you can add those already tested CFTs. That’s 8140 kg of fuel.
An F-35 carries 8,400kg of fuel.
A Rafale will go further with 8140kg of fuel than the F35 with 8400.
That also ignores the drag part of the equation, which would strongly favor the F-35 as all of its fuel, it T-pod, and two of the JSOW would be internal. While the Rafale would be flying in a heavy configuration with four heavy munitions, a targeting pod, and a large subsonic fuel tank.
Weight induced drag will count on the F35 even for internal carriage, and if you want to carry 4 2000lb weapons you’re going to have to carry at least two externally. If you want to carry 6 AAMs like the Rafale can, you’re going to have to carry 4 of them externally too.
Bottom line there is no way the Rafale would come close to the F-35’s range, and that assumed they both flew the same profile. If the Rafale had to fly at low altitude there would be no comparison.
Au contraire there is yes way that the Rafale could go further than the F35 even with less fuel.
One can’t help but wonder. The only reason a buyer would go with something like the AASM is because they anticipate needing to operate at very low altitude. It is a good match for the Rafale, but wouldn’t offer anything to the F-35.
Most countries don’t have the same network than the US have, so most operators will have to rely on low altitude flight. They’re going to need range, & maybe even buddy buddy tanking (which the Rafale can do) because they won’t have the same support assets the US have, no Growloers, drones for target detection etcetc.
So no the F35 doesn’t make sense for that many users, except if you want to be the puppet of the USA & only go to war when they send you & support you.
Nic
Sign In
