F-18 Advanced Super Hornet

[Ajax01]

At most, Rafale is better in interceptor role since it probably climb faster, but that pretty much it. Literally everything else F-35 is better




Anti radiation missile and missile in HoJ mode both home on bearing of radiation, so actually it is irrelevant whether it is an F-35 using radar to Jam or a Rafale jamming with fuselage antenna. For all intend and purpose, they are exactly the same.
Generally speaking, to counter HOJ missile or anti radiation missile, you need the jamming transmitter to not located inside the aircraft. One way to do that is by using fiber optic towed decoy to transmit jamming signal, an example of such system is ALE-70 used by F-35 and ALE-55 used by F-18E/F. By contrast, most Rafale currently doesn't even have towed decoy
View attachment 119318

An alternative way is to put the jammer on a separate cruise missile and doing cooperate blinking jamming in conjunction, two example of that are MALD-J/X/N series and SPEAR-EW, both are available to F-35 while Rafale doesn't have anything even remotely comparable

View attachment 119321
View attachment 119322

and here lie the biggest advantage of F-35 over Rafale, due to the much lower RCS of F-35, the burn through range against F-35 is significantly shorter compared to Rafale, the power required for effective jamming is also several order of magnitude smaller
View attachment 119323

]


F-35 has always have 360 degree attack capability, that literally what DAS and ASQ-239 are for

DAS isn't 360 degree attack though it is advertised as Defensive IRST. EOTS too is incapable at targetting aircraft at higher altitude relative to F35.

 

[StealthFlanker]

DAS isn't 360 degree attack though it is advertised as Defensive IRST.

Nope, DAS is an IRST capable of targeting, it is quite massively different from a MWS

EOTS too is incapable at targetting aircraft at higher altitude relative to F35.

Firstly, aircraft tend to fly at positive AoA when near their service ceiling, so F-35 nose tend to pitch up a little bit
Secondly, the height different between 2 fighter is not enough to escape EOTS vertical FoV, unless at extremely close range, in which case DAS will take over
Thirdly, if we assume F-35 can't detect / track a Rafale fly at higher altitude with EOTS then by the same logic the OSF on Rafale can't track the F-35 at lower altitude either.

 

[Picard]

Sure Rafale has better kinematic and better AA missile than F-18E/F but that where the advantage end. In term of sensor, F-18E/F simply much better than Rafale, there is not even a contest, F-18E/F radar aperture is bigger than Rafale one, which translate to better gain meaning longer detection range and narrower beam width aka better accuracy
Furthermore, F-18E/F IRST has bigger aperture, which once again, translate to better directivity and sensitivity
In term of air to ground weapon, Rafale has nothing comparable to GBU-54 or AARGM-ER
View attachment 119279

Radar is not the only sensor, nor is aperture size so important. Yes, Super-Hornet may have longer-ranged radar, but it will also be noticed further off due to higher RCS. I am also not sure its EW suite can be used to cue the radar, and it doesn't have inbuilt IRST, meaning that it has no fallback options in situations where using radar would be dangerous for the fighter.

At most, Rafale is better in interceptor role since it probably climb faster, but that pretty much it. Literally everything else F-35 is better

Such as?

Anti radiation missile and missile in HoJ mode both home on bearing of radiation, so actually it is irrelevant whether it is an F-35 using radar to Jam or a Rafale jamming with fuselage antenna. For all intend and purpose, they are exactly the same.
Generally speaking, to counter HOJ missile or anti radiation missile, you need the jamming transmitter to not located inside the aircraft. One way to do that is by using fiber optic towed decoy to transmit jamming signal, an example of such system is ALE-70 used by F-35 and ALE-55 used by F-18E/F. By contrast, most Rafale currently doesn't even have towed decoy

Rafale has decoy dispensers. This means that it can easily use dispensable jammers such as BriteCloud. Whether any Rafale user uses such decoys is another matter.

Also, home-on-jam is mostly, if not only, effective against noise jamming. That is not what SPECTRA relies on.

An alternative way is to put the jammer on a separate cruise missile and doing cooperate blinking jamming in conjunction, two example of that are MALD-J/X/N series and SPEAR-EW, both are available to F-35 while Rafale doesn't have anything even remotely comparable

Which is only really relevant in strike missions.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Radar is not the only sensor, nor is aperture size so important. Yes, Super-Hornet may have longer-ranged radar

Unless there is a massive technological disparity between the two radar such as a slotted mechanical radar compete against electronic scanned array, then aperture area is literally among the most if not the most important factor, especially on PESA and AESA since it will affect both radar gain and transmitting output. Which affect both detection range and angular accuracy

I am also not sure its EW suite can be used to cue the radar

ALR-67 can cue radar

The ALR-67(V) is a digital cued receiver, and under the Flightplan its capability will be enhanced to allow single-ship geolocation of emitters with enough accuracy to cue the radar for targeting, says Mathews. The capability for multi-ship geolocation using three F/A-18E/Fs, accurate enough for passive targeting, will also be introduced.

Ultra Hornet

Boeing and the US Navy are poised to expand and exploit the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's capability for precision engagement and battle management now the upgraded platform is matched to the latest avionics

www.flightglobal.com

and it doesn't have inbuilt IRST, meaning that it has no fallback options in situations where using radar would be dangerous for the fighter.

There is a big different between having no internal IRST and completely unable to use IRST. F-16, F-18, F-15 can all carry IRST with very massive sensor aperture

Such as?

SEAD, Anti ship, Escort, CAS, Air superiority

Rafale has decoy dispensers. This means that it can easily use dispensable jammers such as BriteCloud. Whether any Rafale user uses such decoys is another matter.

Decoys like britecloud isn't exactly new, they lack the ability to move at the same speed as the aircraft releasing them, so they are much easier to distinguish compared to fiber optic towed decoy, furthermore, the tiny technique generator on these type of tiny decoy can't compete with dedicated central processor inside the fighter like in case of ALE-55 or ALE-70.
Even F-18 already has system very similar to Brite cloud

Also, home-on-jam is mostly, if not only, effective against noise jamming. That is not what SPECTRA relies on.

No, a missile in home on Jam mode is literally the same as a narrow band anti radiation missile, pretty much the only thing that would separate it from a dedicated ARM like AARGM-ER or KH-58 is the fact that the seeker is very narrow band. So as long as your jammer transmit, it will home on that radiation. The type of jamming whether it is noise jamming or deceptive jamming is irrelevant.

Which is only really relevant in strike missions.

Well no, both SPEAR-EW and MALD-X/N are equipped with 2 way datalink, so their flight path can be controlled, making them effective in both air to ground and air to air mission

 

[Picard]

Unless there is a massive technological disparity between the two radar such as a slotted mechanical radar compete against electronic scanned array, then aperture area is literally among the most if not the most important factor, especially on PESA and AESA since it will affect both radar gain and transmitting output. Which affect both detection range and angular accuracy

1) Aircraft that can use EW suite for cueing in the radar will be able to get better range than an aircraft with technically more powerful radar.
2) Aircraft with lower RCS may well have detection advantage despite weaker radar.
3) Aircraft with better EW suite may negate enemy radar.
4) More powerful radar is also easier to detect.

There is a big different between having no internal IRST and completely unable to use IRST. F-16, F-18, F-15 can all carry IRST with very massive sensor aperture

Any fighter can use IRST like that. No big surprise. But then you are stuck with a big external tank, unless you want to lose your IRST as well.

SEAD, Anti ship, Escort, CAS, Air superiority

SEAD? Probably, at least in open spaces.
Anti ship? I don't see F-35 carrying anywhere as much ordnance as Rafale.
CAS? Definitely not.
Air superiority? Depends on exact conditions and how well whole "kill the enemy at beyond visual range" works.

 

[StealthFlanker]

1) Aircraft that can use EW suite for cueing in the radar will be able to get better range than an aircraft with technically more powerful radar.
2) Aircraft with lower RCS may well have detection advantage despite weaker radar.
3) Aircraft with better EW suite may negate enemy radar.
4) More powerful radar is also easier to detect.

1)Cueing reduce your scan time, it doesn't really make radar see further, and beside, ALR-67 on F-18 can also cue radar
2) agree
3)the problem however is that there is no evidence that Rafale Spectra actually better than IDECM on F-18 E/F
4) yes, but generally , a RWR almost always enjoy the first detection advantage over radar since radar signal travel two way. The advantage of Radar over RWR however is the ability to rapidly calculate range and target velocity in fraction of a second.

Any fighter can use IRST like that. No big surprise. But then you are stuck with a big external tank, unless you want to lose your IRST as well.

Which as i mentioned earlier, Rafale will enjoy kinematic advantage over F-18E/F but the sensor is inferior

Anti ship? I don't see F-35 carrying anywhere as much ordnance as Rafale.

Can Rafale carry 10 Mach 4 missiles with 300 km range ?, it can't

Can Rafale carry hypersonic anti ship missile similar to HACM?, it can't

Can Rafale carry 6 stealth anti ship missile which has 550 km range? it can't

Can Rafale carry 24 cruise missile with jammer to overwhelm the ship air defense? it can't

CAS? Definitely not.

F-35 can literally carry 24 SDB II or SPEAR or JAGM for CAS, what can Rafale carry to make it better?

Air superiority? Depends on exact conditions and how well whole "kill the enemy at beyond visual range" works.

The only situation where Rafale can possibly compete with F-35 in air superiority is if somehow the two side literally decided to abandon their missile can dogfight

 

[Picard]

1)Cueing reduce your scan time, it doesn't really make radar see further, and beside, ALR-67 on F-18 can also cue radar

??? It literally makes radar see further. Any sensor has increased range if it knows where to look ahead of time, as relatively weak returns can then be combined for better processing. Doesn't matter whether it is radar, RWR or IRST.

3)the problem however is that there is no evidence that Rafale Spectra actually better than IDECM on F-18 E/F

Maybe, though I would give it benefit of the doubt considering that Rafale and Spectra were developed concurrently, meaning that each could be optimized for another.

4) yes, but generally , a RWR almost always enjoy the first detection advantage over radar since radar signal travel two way. The advantage of Radar over RWR however is the ability to rapidly calculate range and target velocity in fraction of a second.

True.

Can Rafale carry 10 Mach 4 missiles with 300 km range ?, it can't

These missiles being? Rafale can easily carry six bombs on two hardpoints. It has 14 hardpoints in total compared to 10 for F-35, so it can easily carry 6 air-to-air missiles + 6 guided bombs + 3 external fuel tanks.

Also, F-35 can carry a maximum of 8500 kg, compared to 9500 kg for Rafale. Now, F-35 will have greater range in this configuration, but Rafale can use both external fuel tanks and buddy refuelling, which gives it a far greater flexibility.

Can Rafale carry hypersonic anti ship missile similar to HACM?, it can't

It can, it is only a question of integration. It already carries low observable cruise missiles.

Can Rafale carry 6 stealth anti ship missile which has 550 km range? it can't

It can carry three + 2 drop tanks.

Can Rafale carry 24 cruise missile with jammer to overwhelm the ship air defense? it can't

Probably not.

F-35 can literally carry 24 SDB II or SPEAR or JAGM for CAS, what can Rafale carry to make it better?

Better gun, plus superior aerodynamic configuration which allows it to actually do close CAS as opposed to simply dropping ordnance from range.

The only situation where Rafale can possibly compete with F-35 in air superiority is if somehow the two side literally decided to abandon their missile can dogfight

Or if BVR missiles don't work as well as USAF thinks they do, or if EW suite works better thank USAF/LM think it does, or if enemy manages to sneak up undetected, or if you have to quickly scramble to defend a key point, or if....

The only area where F-35 has advantage over Rafale in air superiority is acting as a mini-AWACS for friendly aircraft. Which is nothing to scoff at, but it also cannot win a battle alone.

Now, my turn:
Can F-35 refuel friendly aircraft? It can't.
Can F-35 provide point defense interception? Barely.
Can F-35 fight in realistic conditions? Somewhat, but not as well as Rafale.
Can F-35 sustain high operational tempo? Unlikely.
Can F-35 fall back to other options if its missiles are defeated? It can't.
Can F-35 disengage if it finds itself in unfavourable conditions? Not in as many situations as Rafale.
Can F-35 chase down fleeing enemies? Not as well as Rafale.

 

[StealthFlanker]

??? It literally makes radar see further. Any sensor has increased range if it knows where to look ahead of time, as relatively weak returns can then be combined for better processing. Doesn't matter whether it is radar, RWR or IRST.

You miss understand what give a radar maximum detection range.
Apart from unchangeable factor that affect radar detection range such as Aperture area, another two factor which will impact radar detection range are Dwell time and transmitting power

Dwell time is the time the radar spent at any particular beam position within its Field of regard, the longer time it spend there, the better the range. However , it only up to a point where the return cause range ambiguity
As you can see in the illustration below, the beam position are the individual square that make up the field of regard

Transmitting power is affected by Pulse width and pulse repetition frequency, generally speaking, longer pulse width and higher pulse repetition frequency mean the radar transmits more power, but of course the penalty is range resolution (not the same issue with range ambiguity). Of course, by pulse compression, you can get long range without sacrifice so much range resolution, but even pulse compression has limit since radar bandwidth is not unlimited

So radar will achieve maximum detection range when dwell time, pulse length and pulse repeation frequency are set at maximum. However, that will significantly affect scan time. The major advantage of cueing is that you can point your radar at target at maximum setting and not have to waste time for the scanning part.
It is important to note that cueing also help fill in missing part of information when necessary. For example: IRST/ESM can track the heading of target very well but they lack ability to rapidly calculate distance to targets and target's velocity. In which case, radar can quickly fill in the gap of missing information. But that doesn't mean the radar will look further than their maximum range in these case

These missiles being?

These are AARGM-ER missiles which frankly, Rafale doesnt have anything remotely equal, you can see one being tested here

Rafale can easily carry six bombs on two hardpoints. It has 14 hardpoints in total compared to 10 for F-35, so it can easily carry 6 air-to-air missiles + 6 guided bombs + 3 external fuel tanks.
Also, F-35 can carry a maximum of 8500 kg, compared to 9500 kg for Rafale. Now, F-35 will have greater range in this configuration, but Rafale can use both external fuel tanks and buddy refuelling, which gives it a far greater flexibility.

Firstly, unless the ship has very weak air defense, like a small Tarantul, then bombs wouldn't be a wise choice to use against them. Even AASM put Rafale well within the lethal range of ship with dedicated air defense like Kirov class or Type055. So it is quite irrelevant how many AASM that Rafale can carry while an F-35 with AARGM-ER or JSM will be significantly more survivable and has much higher chance of penetrating air defense
Secondly, Rafale and F-35 pylons are not equal, to say that Rafale has 14 pylons and F-35 has 10 pylon, and conclude that Rafale is better in that regard is actually quite misleading. Because, 2 out of 14 pylons on Rafale only used for Targeting and navigating pod, they can't be used for munitions. and when it come to anti ship missile, Rafale only ever carry a single one in the centerline pylon

Thirdly, the maximum weapon load in weight is of little important compared to what individual station can handle. Anyway, F-35 can carry twin rack like BRU-69 at station 3/9 and 2/10. So it can effectively carry 8 bomb while still have space for 6 internal Air to air missiles (with the new side kick launcher) and 2 AIM-9X at station 1/11.

It can, it is only a question of integration. It already carries low observable cruise missiles.

Integration is a big deal in reality because it cost money, consider that there are many more buyers for F-35, there are alot more people willing to pay for weapon integration on F-35. In fact, F-35 already got Screaming arrow and HACM waiting for it
Furthermore, station 3/9 of F-35 can carry very heavy weapon, thus make it more suitable to carry hypersonic missile which are indeed very heavy due to their booster

It can carry three + 2 drop tanks..

As far as I know, Rafale is not integrated with JSM like F-35, and Storm shadow is only usable against fixed target

Better gun, plus superior aerodynamic configuration which allows it to actually do close CAS as opposed to simply dropping ordnance from range.

Rafale is not an A-10
Rafale can carry 125 rounds for its gun, please enlighten me how making an unarmored fighter with only 125 bullet getting close to the like of Pantsir-S1 , 2K22 Tunguska or even the ancient ZSU-23-4 is a good idea?

 

[TheFlyingAce]

Stunning afterburner take off at night

 

[Picard]

@StealthFlanker Having problems with quoting so I'll do it like this...

You miss understand what give a radar maximum detection range.
Apart from unchangeable factor that affect radar detection range such as Aperture area, another two factor which will impact radar detection range are Dwell time and transmitting power

Dwell time is precisely what I was talking about. So please, no need for lectures on things I already know.

These are AARGM-ER missiles which frankly, Rafale doesnt have anything remotely equal, you can see one being tested here

Isn't that anti-radiation missile? Also, launching missiles from long range is not very useful against modern shoot-and-scoot SAMs - just look at NATO operations over Bosnia in 1990s. In fact, anything done from altitude and/or long range may not be very useful against modern SAMs.

Firstly, unless the ship has very weak air defense, like a small Tarantul, then bombs wouldn't be a wise choice to use against them. Even AASM put Rafale well within the lethal range of ship with dedicated air defense like Kirov class or Type055. So it is quite irrelevant how many AASM that Rafale can carry while an F-35 with AARGM-ER or JSM will be significantly more survivable and has much higher chance of penetrating air defense
Secondly, Rafale and F-35 pylons are not equal, to say that Rafale has 14 pylons and F-35 has 10 pylon, and conclude that Rafale is better in that regard is actually quite misleading. Because, 2 out of 14 pylons on Rafale only used for Targeting and navigating pod, they can't be used for munitions. and when it come to anti ship missile, Rafale only ever carry a single one in the centerline pylon

Except that is not what your graphics show (and I'm actually quite familiar with them). Yes, Rafale can only carry one in long-range configuration - hence why I agreed that F-35 is better striker. But if you rely on buddy-buddy refueling instead of drop tanks, Rafale can carry three cruise missiles and two 1250 l tanks.

Thirdly, the maximum weapon load in weight is of little important compared to what individual station can handle. Anyway, F-35 can carry twin rack like BRU-69 at station 3/9 and 2/10. So it can effectively carry 8 bomb while still have space for 6 internal Air to air missiles (with the new side kick launcher) and 2 AIM-9X at station 1/11.

And Rafale can carry triple racks in at least fuel tank stations, which means up to 8 bombs if you want to sacrifice fuel tanks. Of course, that will play merry hell with range, meaning you will have to use another Rafale as a tanker.

Integration is a big deal in reality because it cost money, consider that there are many more buyers for F-35, there are alot more people willing to pay for weapon integration on F-35. In fact, F-35 already got Screaming arrow and HACM waiting for it
Furthermore, station 3/9 of F-35 can carry very heavy weapon, thus make it more suitable to carry hypersonic missile which are indeed very heavy due to their booster

Rafale has five stations which can carry either fuel tanks or heavy weapons.

As far as I know, Rafale is not integrated with JSM like F-35, and Storm shadow is only usable against fixed target

True.

Rafale is not an A-10
Rafale can carry 125 rounds for its gun, please enlighten me how making an unarmored fighter with only 125 bullet getting close to the like of Pantsir-S1 , 2K22 Tunguska or even the ancient ZSU-23-4 is a good idea?

It is not a good idea. But neither is having F-16s and F-15s fly gun strafing runs in canyons, yet it has been done time and again. There are situations when a bad idea is still better than no idea at all.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Dwell time is precisely what I was talking about. So please, no need for lectures on things I already know.

Then you would know that what cueing basically do is reduce the huge scan time associated with long dwell time

Isn't that anti-radiation missile?

The original basics AGM-88 HARMs is purely an anti radiation missile with nothing but anti radar seeker and INS
But ever since AGM-88E AARGM version, it become a multi role missile due to the additional MMW terminal seeker, GPS/INS and mid course data link
AGM-88G AARGM-ER is basically AARGM with different airframe and propulsion to double its range and speed from AARGM

Also, launching missiles from long range is not very useful against modern shoot-and-scoot SAMs - just look at NATO operations over Bosnia in 1990s. In fact, anything done from altitude and/or long range may not be very useful against modern SAMs.

The failure of HARMs over Bosnia is due to the fact that HARMs at that time doesn't have a terminal MMW seeker or datalink like AARGM version. That mean as soon as the enemy radar if offline, the HARMs will fly blindly rely purely on INS, so the SAM vehicle only need to move very slightly to make HARM miss. The same can't be said about AARGM and AARGM-ER both have terminal seeker and mid course datalink.
Furthermore, the main issue with launching missiles from long range is the engagement time, given that AARGM-ER is basically 4 time faster than AASM, it can technically be launched from 4 times the distance and still reach target in roughly the same amount of time.

Except that is not what your graphics show (and I'm actually quite familiar with them). Yes, Rafale can only carry one in long-range configuration - hence why I agreed that F-35 is better striker. But if you rely on buddy-buddy refueling instead of drop tanks, Rafale can carry three cruise missiles and two 1250 l tanks

.
If you rely on buddy refueling then the aircraft which will do the refueling will have to carry mostly fuel so that it can have excess fuel to give others fighters in the formation, therefore while the range can improve the total missiles that a group of Rafale can carry won't really improve
Secondly, F-35 can either carry 10 AARGM-ER or 6 JSM, so still a lot more than Rafale

And Rafale can carry triple racks in at least fuel tank stations, which means up to 8 bombs if you want to sacrifice fuel tanks. Of course, that will play merry hell with range, meaning you will have to use another Rafale as a tanker.

Yes, both Rafale and F-35 have configuration where they can carry 8 bombs and 8 air to air missile
But, F-35 still carry 8.2 tons internal fuel compared to Rafale 4.7 tons of internal fuel

Rafale has five stations which can carry either fuel tanks or heavy weapons.

Of which F-35 has 6 station to carry heavy weapon, though i highly skeptical that Rafale has 5000 lbs station like F-35

It is not a good idea. But neither is having F-16s and F-15s fly gun strafing runs in canyons, yet it has been done time and again. There are situations when a bad idea is still better than no idea at all.

Just because they do something in exercise doesn't necessary mean that a common occurrence or good idea in real situation. For example: army around the world still train their soldier in hand to hand combat and bayonet, however, in most case, on the battlefield, the soldier will instead use their rifle.

 

[Picard]

Then you would know that what cueing basically do is reduce the huge scan time associated with long dwell time

It can also increase detection range, as it allows the radar to collect and process returns over time.

https://www.eit.lth.se/fileadmin/eit/courses/eitn90/2018/lecture2.pdf

"SNR increases with increased dwell time Td"
"The single-dwell detection probability can be improved using multiple dwells "

The original basics AGM-88 HARMs is purely an anti radiation missile with nothing but anti radar seeker and INS
But ever since AGM-88E AARGM version, it become a multi role missile due to the additional MMW terminal seeker, GPS/INS and mid course data link
AGM-88G AARGM-ER is basically AARGM with different airframe and propulsion to double its range and speed from AARGM

OK, thanks.

The failure of HARMs over Bosnia is due to the fact that HARMs at that time doesn't have a terminal MMW seeker or datalink like AARGM version. That mean as soon as the enemy radar if offline, the HARMs will fly blindly rely purely on INS, so the SAM vehicle only need to move very slightly to make HARM miss. The same can't be said about AARGM and AARGM-ER both have terminal seeker and mid course datalink.
Furthermore, the main issue with launching missiles from long range is the engagement time, given that AARGM-ER is basically 4 time faster than AASM, it can technically be launched from 4 times the distance and still reach target in roughly the same amount of time.

Thanks.

Just because they do something in exercise doesn't necessary mean that a common occurrence or good idea in real situation. For example: army around the world still train their soldier in hand to hand combat and bayonet, however, in most case, on the battlefield, the soldier will instead use their rifle.

I was talking about real situations. Look at Close Air Support in Afghanistan: you have A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s... all doing gun runs.

 

[StealthFlanker]

It can also increase detection range, as it allows the radar to collect and process returns over time.

https://www.eit.lth.se/fileadmin/eit/courses/eitn90/2018/lecture2.pdf

"SNR increases with increased dwell time Td"
"The single-dwell detection probability can be improved using multiple dwells "

That literally what I show you earlier
The dwell time increase detection range till the point we get range ambiguity, that why Velocity search is basically the mode with longest detection range
At the same time, longer dwell time negatively affect scan time because it increase the time the radar will stay at any particular beam position
Cueing help you reduce the scan time.

I was talking about real situations. Look at Close Air Support in Afghanistan: you have A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s... all doing gun runs.

Literally all of them were mainly using cluster bombs such as CBU-103/105, AGM-65, GBU-12 for CAS.
Recently, you have something like APKWS, which is far better than cannon anyway

if you absolutely want to have cannon like effect, you can just choose flechette warhead for APKWS

 

[Picard]

That literally what I show you earlier
The dwell time increase detection range till the point we get range ambiguity, that why Velocity search is basically the mode with longest detection range
At the same time, longer dwell time negatively affect scan time because it increase the time the radar will stay at any particular beam position
Cueing help you reduce the scan time.

Exactly what I said. Cueing will help reduce scan time, but it will also increase detection range for the same scan time as sensor will have ability to receive, interpret and interpolate more returns. It is same as how images of the sky are taken in the astronomy: telescope follows rotation of the Earth so that same positions o the sky always correlate to same areas on the photo panel. Longer exposure time means that stars can be recorded even when normally they would not have been visible through the telescope doing the photography.

Literally all of them were mainly using cluster bombs such as CBU-103/105, AGM-65, GBU-12 for CAS.
Recently, you have something like APKWS, which is far better than cannon anyway

Mainly is not always. And I doubt APKWS can replicate effects of a cannon, nevermind the fact that US and EU have both demonstrated the ability to start running out of guided munitions during a moderate-intensity campaigns.

 

[Super Flanker]

Anyone noticed that the Hornet-C's air intakes are very similar to the LCA Mk1's?

Yes I have noticed this and this feature of a C type intake is present only on the FA-18 Hornet and not the FA-18 Super Hornet. Look at the following images:

(Front view of FA-18 hornet, you can notice the C type intakes on this Aircraft)

(Front view of the FA-18 Super Hornet, you can notice the newer design of the boxy type intakes).

(This is a far better view to understand)
Also Both the Aircrafts use different Engines too, the FA-18 Super Hornet uses General Electric F414 and the Regular FA-18 hornet uses F404 engines and it's powerplant.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Yes I have noticed this and this feature of a C type intake is present only on the FA-18 Hornet and not the FA-18 Super Hornet. Look at the following images:
View attachment 130684
(Front view of FA-18 hornet, you can notice the C type intakes on this Aircraft)View attachment 130685
(Front view of the FA-18 Super Hornet, you can notice the newer design of the boxy type intakes).
View attachment 130688
(This is a far better view to understand)
Also Both the Aircrafts use different Engines too, the FA-18 Super Hornet uses General Electric F414 and the Regular FA-18 hornet uses F404 engines and it's powerplant.

He posted that in 2020 and its 2022 when you’re quoting him and till the time we already got to know the difference in their intakes.

 

[Super Flanker]

He posted that in 2020 and its 2022 when you’re quoting him and till the time we already got to know the difference in their intakes.

Ok So what's the big deal? Does it matter? No it doesn't and btw I had a question to Ask you, do you think so that if we ask the US for FA-18 EW(Electronic WarFare) Configuration variant which is known as EA-18G Growler, than they will be ready to sell it to us?

 

[Super Flanker]

FA-18 Blue_Angels_Super_Hornet_over_Pensocola

Blue Angels F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat FA-18 Hornet

Blue Angles FA-18 Blue_Angel_Boeing_Super_Hornets_Conducting_Pitchup_Break

 

[johnj]

Nope, DAS is an IRST capable of targeting, it is quite massively different from a MWS
View attachment 119326


Firstly, aircraft tend to fly at positive AoA when near their service ceiling, so F-35 nose tend to pitch up a little bit
Secondly, the height different between 2 fighter is not enough to escape EOTS vertical FoV, unless at extremely close range, in which case DAS will take over
Thirdly, if we assume F-35 can't detect / track a Rafale fly at higher altitude with EOTS then by the same logic the OSF on Rafale can't track the F-35 at lower altitude either.

Last time i read, das irst not good compared to 4.5 gen irst, eots also not good enough, and also need a new engine and still apg 81 is unmatched and a gen ahead of any rf sensor. IRST. EOTS irrelevant for f35 for air to air combat due to stealth, ir reduction, and its rf sensor can track 2m2 target 200km away and identify them very fast. By 2030 f35 current IRST. EOTS replaced by 5th gen ones, plus loyal wingman. IRST. EOTS good for aim9 and f35 mainly choose aim120. Rafale having greater range iir missile.