MACE (Multi-Mission Affordable Capacity Effector)

Forest Green

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Joined
11 June 2019
Messages
5,124
Reaction score
6,776
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.
 
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.
Cost probably.
 
Something I just picked up on when this was mentioned in the F-35 thread is that the MACE warhead is tiny in comparison to JSM/NSM, Harpoon and LRASM. 35Kg vs 120Kg, 220Kg and 456Kg respectively. Which puts MACE more in scaled-up SPEAR 3 territory than scaled down NSM/Harpoon/LRASM.

If you're not going to get within about 200NM of the target, why not just opt for JSM with the NSM guidance section and carry two in the bay and two-four underwing.

I do not think the USN exclusively has ships in mind as the target set, or explosives as the only payload. But as noted JSMs cost something like 2 million; navy is proposing $300,000 target. Also internal carriage preserves stealth on the F-35.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom