1000 lb means 450 kg.
So 1000 pound overweight means just 450 Kg overweight. What I said was at the most 600 Kg. By quoting 400 kg ,You are weakening your case.
And weight reduction efforts are on to reduce this even further.
I will repeated it twice already, and i will repeat this again, even if the empty weight of nlca and lca was equal, ncla would never be able to reach stores capacity of lca. so the difference will cut into its weapon stores capacity. the additional empty weight of nlca will result in further deduction in external stores.
You should not have to repeat a factually incorrect statement again again and again and expect it to be true.
Even with few 100 KG less weapon load than the IAF LCA mk-1 , The NLCA is hundred times better than the present fighter Sea harrier IN has.
And it is fully capable of carrier operation. So your claim that LCA mk-1 is unfit for naval combat falls flat on it's face.
Because by the time NLCA is fully developed ADA would be very close to navalizing LCA mk-2. SO the IN will have 95 percent of it's NLCA fleet in mk-2 version.
That does not mean your lie that NLCA mk-1 is unfit for naval combat will become true. Do you know what is the meaning of supersonic missile launch. Sea harrier does not have this basic function needed in any 4th gen fighter. Still it served IN well for decades.
So no foll would call NLCA mk-1 is unfit for naval combat with no proof worth the paper written on it and expecting all the members to believe in unnamed naval officers quote in a website.
Just give me a source for your 3 tonnes of weapons store for nlca. anything source, anything with numbers in it, anything which is not guesswork.
You are the genius who claimed NLCA mk-1 won't carry any meaning full load. IN and ADA think that 4 NLCA mk-1 combat versions they have ordered are good enough with whatever load they can carry after weight reduction.
Source? can you write any sentence without supposing or guessing things?
Yes, the NLCA is better than harrier. Is that something to be proud of for you? Harrier was inducted in RN before LCA program even started. It is capable of performing VOTL/STOVL It proved its mettle in Falkland wars. Even US uses harrier for usmc wing. And now when it is 35 years, you come chest thumping and say that a new kid on the block is better than the harrier.
US used Harrier for decades on it's ships.
No one is chest thumping the superiority of NLCA over harrier. Since your stuffed self has proclaimed a judgement that NLCA won't be fit for naval combat with as usual false claims, I compared it with SEA harrier, which is going to be modernized with new missiles and radars in IN.
So when Sea harriers are still fit to be modernized and operated , how come just 4 NLCA mk-1s become unfit to land on a carrier?
Let me ask you a question, why do people like you always feel to compare tejas with aircraft like mig 21 and sea harrier. Why didn't you compare it with other contemporary carrier based A/C such as F35c, RAfale-m, and mig-29k. because everyone knows where mk1 stands when compared to other modern aircraft. thats why the easier solution is to compare it with 5 decade old aircraft and feel good about yourself.
Because people like you false claims based on spurious sources. And When I counter it ask me to give a source for NLCA's store capacity.
WHy do people like you repeatedly rake up stupid lies as truth and put words into the mouth of other posters expecting your mad claims to be true?What is your gain? In has only ordered 4 NLCA mk-1 for combat role. And no one knows what will be the final empty weight and what will be it's weapon load capacity.
Then why are you beating your chest here?
Otherwise why should I compare NLCA mk-1 with F-22 and sea harrier?
Anyways don't bother replying to the post, i will away from the forum for some time. will not be replying to you.
