In fact, this problem is actually even more pronounced for 5th-gen fighters when going on anti-ship missions that require stealth-mode (instead of beast-mode). This directly translates to having a smaller volume for fuel, hence lower effective strike range for the airborne AShMs compared to their shipborne counterparts. This also resulted in the volumes allocated for AShMs to be fitted on carrier-based fighters being always smaller than the volumes allocated for AShMs fitted inside VLS cells. launched from a carrier-based fighter) due to the obvious fact - Whereby shipborne AShMs can be as large as the VLS onboard surface warships permits them, while airborne AShMs have to fit the size of the carrier-based fighters without scraping the flight deck of aircraft carriers. launched from a surface combatant) are typically larger than airborne AShMs (i.e. To set the premise of discussion, let's talk about anti-ship strike missions. However, there are much more things to consider than just going "missile gets further, no need plane ATW", or "plane gets further, no need missile go far ATW". Sounds like a carrier aviation-vs-big guns debate from the interwar period (1918-1939), but 21st-century version.
0 kommentar(er)
