The pod only contains a single bomb (1k or 2k)…. So double the needed ASH’s to get the job done or carry two pods.

However, two pods means that they are on the wing which leads to tremendous drag thanks to canted pylons. Bye, bye range.

Hmmmm, Makes you think that this is the reason why they only advertise the ASH’s range when carrying a single, center-line WP.

Noo more canted pylons on F18 “advanced” afaik. Or they advertised so a long time ago

Yes, drones, aircrafts, boots integration for CAS is somewhere a model for integrated battlenet. One of the fastest moving areas.

Can we please treat JSR posts like the accidental passing of gas in an elevator? Everyone knows that it is there, but no one acknowledges it.

Remind’s me about Voltaire’s joke after someone (him) made a noisy gas : turned to the lady seating nearby him and loudly hissed : “Dites que c’est moi Madame” (tell its me Madam)

I generally agree with you, but.

Correspondingly UAVs are great for situational awareness and identifying enemy and friendly troops. The UAV is controlled by a pilot but also has a payload operator and in most western nations has intelligence/imagery analysts present as well. A manned CAS aircraft does not have that expertise to call upon.

(i) Quite often JTACs (or NATO FACs for instance) prefer two seaters for the very reasons you gave. Backseater is of great help in awareness.
(ii) New generation pods (at least some have a dedicated datalink allowing real time image transmissions.

PS it is nice to have a civil constructive discussion here!

They scrapped that probably, aircraft with high fuel fraction doesn’t benefit so much from EFT

No they scrapped that because EFT only brought in 8% more range.

Actually this makes sense, this is probably why the F-35 threads are filled with trolls and garbage while the threads about other planes are relatively uncluttered. None of the other threads have such a high proportion of bad facts and inaccurate assertions about the plane compared to this one. “Can’t beat it in the air, have to beat it on the forums” seems to be the mantra.

—–

Since this thread is temporarily diverging toward the Rafale, yes let’s compare just how the Rafale program did. France had been looking into it since the 1970’s, with the ACT in 1978, ACX in 1982, and of course ECA, FEFA, and EFA with the other European countries prior to pulling out. Similarly, there were precursors to the JSF program for the F-35, i.e. CALF, JAST, etc. France announced the $30 billion program in 1987, saying it was expected to enter service in 1996. It actually IOC’ed in 2002 with the F1 standard in October 2002. That standard is an air-defense standard, i.e. only has air-to-air capability. Sure, France sent a few of them on the Charles de Gaulle in 2001 and 2002, but they only have one carrier to play around with, so if they’re trying to figure out how to set up naval operations with the plane then it has no choice but to go wherever the carrier goes…and the carrier went to Afghanistan to support operations there. So basically it went to do air superiority missions against the non-existent Taliban Air Force as part of its operational testing and exercises, since it couldn’t drop any bombs. So much for that “omnirole” and the operational danger. It didn’t receive the F2 standard, which gives it air-to-ground capability, until 2005, with the Air Force starting operations with it in 2006, and with Dassault saying along the way that the program being 10 years behind was not its fault (but of course the 5-year delay of the F-35 program is 100% Lockheed Martin’s fault!).

Oh yeah…originally announced as a $30 billion project, it’s now estimated to be some $62.7 billion according to wikipedia, taken from the French Senate. From a book from 1990, the development and tooling costs were estimated to going to be $6.1 billion, with the Navy version to cost $36.3 million and the Air Force version to cost $39.2 million (presumably in 1990 dollars). (The book also says the Rafale program would cost $18.3 billion for 336 aircraft.) How well did those estimates hold up?

So you have a program which started in the 1980s, originally scheduled to enter service in 1996, finally achieve IOC with the Navy in 2002, and didn’t have any air-to-ground capability until 2005, and the Air Force started operating it in 2006 (there’s some discrepancies as to whether the 2006 date was IOC or FOC, but the Air Force wanted air-to-ground capability which wasn’t delivered until 2005, so IOC couldn’t have been before that). Compare that with the F-35 which was originally scheduled in 2001 to IOC in 2010 to 2012 (depending on variant), and is now ending up reaching IOC in 2015 to 2018 — and at the time of IOC can already fire missiles and drop bombs, with the final IOC in 2018 being cleared for full weapons and flight envelope (IIRC). Not only is it ahead of the Rafale’s timeline in terms of staying closer to the original schedule, but it had to demonstrate more capabilities than the “omnirole” plane.

It’s the problem with trolls trying to come to this thread to pick on the F-35’s developmental issues — every aircraft had issues during development, and just about every recent fighter program has had cost overruns and schedule slippages. Yet somehow they think it’s fine to pick on the F-35, as if their own favored aircraft didn’t have any issues. Do these trolls point out the cost overruns and schedule slippages of other fighter programs in other fighter threads? Do they think it’s fair game to talk about how their own respective planes had developmental issues as well and clutter up those other fighter threads?

I try not to intervene on F-35 topic about Rafale, but…

I prefer to stick on official numbers… Nvm
Comparing Rafale and F-35 programs timeline and delays is fairly ridiculous. One never missed money while the other was struggling and awaited orders for several years (tooling was ready and rusting…). If you cite 1990 dollars for Rafale and 2017 dollars for F-35, you are comparing apples and oranges.

And whatever say wikipedia (what a source!) , Rafale program was audited and cost rose for roughly 5%. Definitely not 62.7 billions, around 45 (2014 euros, documented, tired to post it).

So when you talk avbout troll… Plz hurry to next doors market and buy a mirror.

Back to F-35?