Search results

Just putting this out there for comparisons to CATOBAR version of Mig-29K... the wings on Rafale-M don't fold...

http://www.defencetalk.com/russia-ready-supply-fighters-new-indian-aircraft-carrier-66523/ Article would indicate that CATOBAR Mig-29K is feasible, if not in the works already.

Re: INS VISHAL : first CATOBAR aircraft carrier Why not simply stick with Vikrant's design modified for EMALS? If successful, simply refit Vikrant/Vikramāditya with the same configuration during scheduled overhauls.

Not even long-lead items?

A guess based on the F-35C's lackluster T2W ratio with normal load. Not a deal-breaker for IAC II, but problematic on a ramp. Might not fit down the Vikramaditya's elevator hole anyways... but that's a discussion for another thread.

Christ... someone's been hanging out on Nation-States.:D

The F-35C is almost certainly too heavy to operate effectively off of the IN's STOBAR carriers; IAC II is the only chance it has. As for the LHDs... I'll speak to that on the proper topic.

Good show, but I'm not really sure how it applies to the IAC II... unless the 29s can somehow be modified for CATOBAR ops (which would be totally boss BTW).

@J20! @p2prada I think you're both getting carried away with what your respective favorites will actually haul on combat missions. MTOW is rarely used on any fighter and range is subject to a number of factors outside the aircraft itself.

Self delete. Too far off topic.

Eh... Source?

Come to think about it, I'm not sure if the baseline AMCA is getting much proper interest. HAL/IAF really have their hands full with three new fighters to introduce into service over the next few years (Tejas, Rafale, and FGFA).

That's... still pretty optimistic. Flying, land-based prototypes, yes. IOC CATOBAR version? I rather doubt it.

Power-point to IOC in ~2 years would blow my mind. :eyebrows: Perhaps you were thinking of MRCA?

@ Decklander Space based? NDA? Boxing? Weight catagories? Wha...............................? :wacko:

Well gee, why don't ya'll just forget about IAC II and tow IAC I out to be an artificial reef? :confused:

Hmm, the Russians/Chinese seem convinced that *stealth* will be relevant for a long time yet. From what I hear, the Israeli statement was a gimmick to badger LM into giving them more latitude in equipment (like the EW suite you mentioned).

There are many problems yet to solve on the F-35, but by all accounts, an unforgiving approach/landing margin certainly ain't one them. In fact, the control software is so good that the Naval pilots actually find it easier to make a faster approach with a lower flap setting/AoA than what the...

I've got little patience for LM's marketing spiel as the F-35 is still 6 years behind schedule. That might be just fine for the IAC II (by which time production will finally be hitting its stride), but it's a serious problem from our end.

And I just explained how simple the problem was to fix. If you need to hear it again Barney-style: 1. They sharpen hook to catch less-rebounded wire 2. Add dampener to keep hook from bouncing See? Now wasn't that easier than bawling for a complete redesign?