Search results

Nuclear powered carrier is good. The reason is because apart from saving up on fuel storage and increasing hangar space, the propulsion systems will be indigenous. If we go for conventional propulsion, the engines will have to be imported, but with nuclear power, we have companies in India...

@J20! I agree, it is one or the other, not both. Anyway, I already gave you the figures for range. With 3 drop tanks, the Rafale manages a range of 3600Km. With internal fuel, F-35A would be at 2200 Km. Halve both and we have 1800 Km for Rafale and 1100 Km for F-35A. With only...

The development agency is called ADA (Aeronautical Development Agency). HAL will make prototypes, but assembly line should be made well after 2028. By then Rafale and Tejas lines would close. So only FGFA and AMCA. However we will have a much larger economy by then. If we are thinking of three...

The Navy is yet to show proper interest in AMCA. Nothing much as of today.

Design stage for AMCA started last year. Don't know the exact month. It will continue for some more time before the final design is frozen. Then IAF will evaluate the design once again before the commencement of the engineering phase which will see the construction of two demonstrators and the...

F-35A/C are heavy aircraft. Empty weight is around 13-14 tonnes vs 16 tonnes on Su-27 and SH. Loaded weight is 23 - 24 tonnes, similar to Su-27's 23-24 tonnes. MTOW is also very similar at around 31-33 tonnes. Fuel carries is also similar, 8 - 9 tonnes vs 10.5 tonnes on Su-27. SH figures come...

Depends on the definition of stealth. The Russians haven't compromised on agility for stealth. Sure PMF is stealthy, but they haven't placed their bets only on stealth, like LM did with F-35. The Israeli view is quite realistic. They just want the next best option to stealth in their own hands...

I am pretty sure the landing may end up being controlled automatically by the aircraft rather than giving the controls to the pilot. This seems to be a new fad, automatic landing and take off.

I am all for the Navy picking the F-35C if a tender is released for many reasons. For one, it is a fifth generation aircraft. Beats the Rafale there. Also, we don't know, as of today, to what extent the F-35s stealthiness will be compromised with new advances in radar. But anything that will...

I think this issue is in the process of being solved. The 10 feet gap would mean the pilot needs to show lesser margin for error when he converts from a legacy aircraft.

A million other teething issues will be fixed by then. So we will only have to worry about issues that come up in Indian conditions.

I am pretty sure you realize that is only if MN orders none above the 48 contracted for. They were talking about a STOBAR PAKFA. Maybe Mig may design and build a CATOBAR aircraft, but there is none planned as of today. Russia may choose PAKFA for all their needs.

The distance between the landing gears and the hook can cause unnecessary stress on the aircraft as a whole. It also requires the aircraft to land at a higher than normal AoA which can cause an accident. I have no idea how LM has answered this problem, but yeah, this is a problem.

Yup. Pretty much the same story everywhere, including FGFA, F-35 etc. Without the fortune and goodwill of export customers even the F-35 program will become a huge problem for LM. It is just that the French goodwill is quite related to their own requirements for 12 more aircraft as you so...

I agree that we don't need the F-35B. It would be neat if the Navy jumps into the Rafale bandwagon too. Would save the hassle of going through a new tender. Super Hornet has inferior performance. No competition with the Rafale. This was one of our Navy Admiral's viewpoint.

You are forgetting entirely about MN's land base requirements. No Navy has their entire air force on one or two ships alone. Obviously nothing's official until it is official. STOBAR options are in plenty. We already have two options in the Mig-29 and LCA. Since IAC-II is gonna be...

I was more inclined to know your opinion based on the technical merits of the two aircraft. Your analysis of F-35C and Rafale-M to be exact. Also did I read right when you said the IAF Rafale deal will be linked to INs requirement rather than release a whole new tender for it?

They don't need 6x the numbers for training, reserves and attrition. Else USN would need 3000 SHs. At best 2 as reserve and 2 trainers for each squadron. That's 4 extra for a 12 aircraft squadron. They can expand based on orders. Their production line allows expansion, but we don't know by...

No. The plan is still for 294. The French senate openly revealed budget info for 286 aircraft at a cost of 44 Billion Euros. 60 Rafale-Ms for a carrier where not more than 10 Rafale Ms are deployed. Are you kidding me? I am not forgetting anything. Rafale's current orders are enough to...

@Decklander Any thoughts on which aircraft you would prefer between Rafale and F-35 for IAC-2? Also according to this article, No India jet fighter deal before end March: minister | Reuters It seems to be hinting at the Naval tender.