Didn’t the French employ SCALP-EGs during the conflict? Why expend such expensive munitions if the Rafale could achieve the same results with a far cheaper AASM or GBU-24?
This is pretty much an educated guess, as I know ****** all about the actual specs of any of the kit involved, and should be treated as such:
Could it be that the actual cost of a mission is less with a Scalp-eg than a Rafaele with munition against a fixed confirmed target?
Fuel costs, wear on the airframe, presumably a probability of crashing (regardless of enemy action) as a proportion of airframe cost and pilot value, probability of being destroyed (by enemy action) as a proportion of same, cost of fuel for tanker and same statistical values as above must add up to a sum of cash.
There are times when one does not actually know at launch where target is or whether it will actually require destruction and missions where one airframe is required and expected to attack multiple targets or else we’d only see cruise missiles used.
But maybe there are missions where accountancy and economics say that the cheapest option is just to fire off a long range missile?
Sign In
