Since we ‘re talking about 5th gen and the F-35 is “supposed to be” 5th gen (:p) , I find it bizarre that the European partners did not include the Meteor as part as the requirement . They paid enough to have theirs words .

Is it another unplanned shortcoming or LM ‘s choice to force the partners to buy the futur US “Meteor” ? 😀
I have never been a F-35 “fan” and one more time a sarcastic smile is on my face .

Since we don ‘t have a clue on the real RCS of the F-35 , how the aircraft is gonna cope with Russian or Chinese made interceptors equipped with the R-77M1 ramjet missile which also have the HoJ (Home on Jam) capability ?
HoJ missiles can be jammed but it takes a highly efficient ECM suite to archive the trick , so how good is the F-35’s AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) Electronic Warfare system ?

The best is always to shoot first as it forces the opponent to react swiftly and sometimes to even give up the fight for a couple of minutes . If the F-35 is on a AtoG mission , as it supposed to be , it will not have the Meteor to even up the fight .

I know that the USMC is planning to use the next-generation jammer (NGJ) , though a conventional pod design but it would impact the aircraft’s radar cross-section . That pod could indeed boost the F-35 ‘s ECM capability but the RCS would suffer .

What about the European F-35s ?

I am just trying to imagine Chinese Flankers (or J-20s) going after F-35s 😮
The Chinese aircraft would have the speed and altitude advantage , the missiles advantage and the numbers advantage …
I know that the F-35s will not act alone but if push comes to shove , I don ‘t give much chance to the JSF .
Its max speed is said to be 1.6 Mach , it is not build to do knife-fight and fighting bays open (dogfight) is not its cup of tea .
After all , it is a slow LO bomb truck .

Cheers .

@ Spudman :

From Jane ‘s (also reported on Wiki) :

Fit checks of Meteor have already been conducted in the internal weapons bays of the JSF. Meteor is compatible with the aircraft’s internal air-to-ground stations, but not the internal air-to-air stations. MBDA is looking at the feasibility of reducing the fin span by a few millimetres and modifying the air intakes for compatibility with the air-to-air stations.

Cheers .

There are four main areas that ATK will be concentrating their development efforts on which include: high burn rate propellants for improved kinematics; improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility; low erosion nozzles for improved performance; and multi-pulse propulsion for end-game maneuverability.

I believe this to be the continuation of the Hughes ‘s program (Raytheon) for the creation of a US made “Meteor” , the FMRAAM :

Hughes’ initial offering for SR(A)1239 was powered by a variable-flow ducted rocket ((VFDR)). This had been under development by an Atlantic Research (ARC)/Alliant Techsystems (ATK) team for ten years

-1) High burn rate propellant : probably a oxygen deficient composite solid propellant like the one used on the Meteor .
-2) improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility : Mica ‘s path , then Meteor ‘s path .
-3) low erosion nozzles for improved performance : again , same than Meteor .
-4) and multi-pulse propulsion for end-game maneuverability : again , same than Meteor :

The high energy boron-loaded propellant provides a roughly threefold increase in specific impulse compared to conventional solid rocket motors.

Note the “specific impulse” .

To make it short , nothing new under the sky . Even the date is telling , second half 2013 .
I think that the problem lies with the F-35 inability to carry internaly the Meteor (wingspan too large and air intakes too big) . AFAIK , only the F-35 ‘s internal ground stations could accomodate the actual Meteor , or the external hardpoints .
Raytheon ‘ s goal is rather clear I think 😎

Cheers .

Aurcov (Quoting P. Metz) :

The kinematic range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM, for example, increases by fifty percent as aircraft speed increases from 0.9 to 1.5 Mach (this assumes an altitude advantage for the shooter).

Ok , I stand corrected but I still think Mr. Metz is slightly exagerating .
Note the altitude advantage which proves that the missile needs a lot of “room” to archive its max range (like any other BVR missile) .

BVR missiles like the AMRAAM C , Vympel R-77 and Mica are quoted to have a max speed of Mach 4 when launched in optimum conditions .
The VL (vertical launched) Mica ‘s max speed is around Mach 2.5 because it starts from zero speed and its max range is around 20km .
Statoreactor missiles like the R-77M1 or Meteor have an even greater max speed (around Mach 4.5) even launched in subsonic speed .

Some missiles accelerate much faster than others (Mica , ASRAAM) and they reach a medium range target (10-20km) quicker than a vanilla AMRAAM or Adder , which is a good thing .

There is one thing to keep in mind which is the weight of the missile . For example , let ‘s compare 3 very similar missiles in shape and size : Mica , AMRAAM and R-77 .
They have a comparable length (3.10m , 3.66m , 3.60m) , comparable diameter (0.16m , 0.17m , 0.20m) , comparable wingspan (0.56m , 0.52m , 0.58m) but their weight is vastly different ! (112kg , 156kg , 175kg) .

Warheads weight : 12kg for Mica , 18kg for Amraam and 30kg(!) for the R-77 . Even if you put 30kg of explosive in the Mica , the total weight will be 130kg , 45kg less (!) than the R-77 .
Mica ‘s TWR is much better and its why its accelerates much faster , it is a very light and compact BVR missile .
What I would like to find is the total propellant weight for each missile , any help would be appreciated 🙂

Mica needed to be as light as possible because it is also a dogfighter and MBDA did a great job .
When launched at high altitude and at high Mach , the Mica will reach its target first , not by much but still .

As you see , everything is … relative 😉

Cheers .

Netta :

The F-22, Su-35, and T-50 all have a energy advantage over the Typhoon.

Eerr , care to back that up with hard data , “Dear Sir” ?
Typhoon is accelerating like a “ferrari” (dixit RAF pilots) and climbing is its second nature .
Personaly , I would bet my next paycheck that the SU-35 ‘s acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.6 is not as good as Typhoon ‘s .
T-50 is still an unknown quantity , so how can you be so sure ?

Cheers .

Scorpion :

First and foremost IIRC it were 3 aerial targets and 6 ground targets (making 9). The articles I have seen ……… The big question is are you representing the facts correctly or are you mixing up things here ?

We obviously have the same sources , more or less .
I know that the Rafale is perfectly capable of “dynamically” destroying targets ( understand “on the fly”) within seconds . Did it happen ?
We don ‘t have precise infos so yes I extrapolated a bit but who cares as long as the capability is there ? 🙂

The two most important factors are in order , the capability to detect and pinpoint the threat (before it can engage you) , then to destroy it with almost impunity with a well designed weapon .
Basically , what the F-22 is trying to do in AtoA , the Rafale is trying to do it in AtoG .

The AASM Hammer is the weapon designed for the task and it is the first laser guided weapon to hit vertically its target (World first , think of the Math algorithms behind it) . It is also the first “bomb” to act as a missile .
The modular weapon that can be bought with different guidance systems also has now been given numerical designations :
-The INS/GPS-guided version is the SBU-38 (SBU=Smart Bomb Unit)
-The laser-guided version is the SBU-54.
-The INS/GPS/Infrared-guided version is the SBU-64

a SDB or JDAM will do it particularly for a high and fast flying F-22

And what if you need to avoid triple digit Russian SAMs made and are forced to fly low ?? 😮
Scorpion , the best way to infiltrate a 3 to 5 th gen air-defense is still to fly low if the landscape can be of any help . France is right about tactics and the aircraft needed for the task . 🙂

Cheers .

Scorpion :

You simply didn’t grasp the point!

Ok , I got it now , my bad 😮 We ‘re both right , it is just that I misunderstood what you were saying , sorry again .

Multi target engagement against aerial targets isn’t a big deal and engaging multiple ground targets with GPS guided munitions in a single pass isn’t a big deal either! An F-15E, F-16 or F/A-18 could do the same…

“isn ‘t a big deal either” ? well , allow me to disagree .
There are multiple factors to “factor” in , if I may say . First , since we are talking about SAMs and enemy aircraft , did “our” fighter manage to detect the 8 threats ?
The radar alone is not enough to do this and then , you need to “know” the threats rather early . Detecting their RF emissions and pinpointing them early is what “our” fighter needs . Remember these 2 very important points , Scorpion .
Then , you might not have the time to change your altitude and/or flight path to put yourself in a favourable position to fire your AtoG weapons . With the AASM Hammer , this is not really a problem .
Then , you ‘ll need a top rate onboard data-fusion (and very fast at it) to fire quickly 6 weapons at 6 different targets from coordinates gathered passively .

During this very short and busy time , don ‘t forget that “our” fighter has to deal with 2 incoming air targets and it does . 🙂
All the fighters you cited are incapable to archive the same because they lack few things , including the sensors , the weapon and the 5th gen data-fusion .
What the Rafale demonstrated during this exercise was a World first and even the USAF praised it .
We have now enough official reports to accept it as a fact .

So tell me what sensor is needed to target SAM sites or ground targets in general? Oh its RWR/ESM and possibly radar to get a more accurate firing solution! These sensors are present on the F-22, GPS guided munitions aren’t integrated to be targeted randomly in flight, that’s the sole problem as of now for the F-22! That’s it!

First , you need a top range RWR with interferometry . The F-22 has one . Secondly , the onboard sensor fusion must be capable to interpret the passively gathered data and present a workable solution to the pilot and to the firing control system , with target priorities .
Thirdly , you need the weapon to do the job . As it is now , you don ‘t have something like the Hammer .

On a personal note , this capability is better used with a F-35 . The F-22 has something else to do 😎

Cheers .

Scorpion82 , I ‘m not here to bash the F-22 and as you know , I like the aircraft .

It is just that we can ‘t compare an interceptor like the F-22 with a multirole (omnirole) like the Rafale .
Personaly , I wouldn ‘t trade a Rafale for a F-22 . One is excellent at one thing , the other is good at everything .

Then , you and Spudman are talking about futur upgrades when some of us are talking about actual and operational capabilities .
Also , some of your points in post #393 are incorrect and it is also possible that you misunderstood me .

Cheers .