my bad as you have never simply stated that.Where did I say that they will have problem operating them. I am simply saying that you can house lesser number of bigger aircraft on a carrier.
Just go back and read my post again using your brain. I told you about SCALP to show that even medium weight fighters have strike weapons. So just because a Sukhoi can carry Brahmos, it doesn't mean it is superior. Is it so difficult to understand? Plus if you had actually bothered to google Brahmos 3, you would have known that Brahmos will soon be available to medium weight fighters as well.You must know offensive foreign import weapons are not without strings attached, feel free to acknowledge if their is a communication problem in laungage then stating my debate as Ultra or something.
Brahmos is not domestically produced. The fact that you don't even know this speaks volume. The so called "production centres" of Brahmos are nothing more than assembly workshopsI just wonder if I am in support for Domestically produced weapon system, I become ultra nationalistic self if it is yes I am :accepted:
Again, go back and read. The difficulties with MTOW will exist, the weight of IAC-2 is already decided. And ACs today carry heterogeneous combination of aircraft. So suggesting that IAC-2 will be optimized to carry a particular type of aircraft is stupid.my bad as you have never simply stated that.
DOn't put your own subjective judgements on who failed on what and , then bail out saying that is not the topic of discussion.Let me say this for once. The earliest possible date of induction of FGFA is 2022, if everything goes well.
Making a carrier version of FGFA could take 8-10 years, but since that is not on the cards, we can safely assume that no carried version of FGFA will be built.
IAC-2 can be delayed, sure, but by how much? not 8-10 years. It is expected to enter service around 2022. So there are no chances of it getting AMCA. We will have to source fighters from outside.
The problem with heavy fighters is more than about space, they are much heavier than medium weight and hence it is difficult for them to take off at MTOW, since the runway on a carrier is much shorter than on an airfield. If a heavy fighter can't take off at MTOW, whats the use of having it in the first place. Thats why IN rejected the more capable Su33 in favor of Mig29K.
F35 won't kill AMCA, its just being bought for one ship. Likewise, Rafale didn't do anything to either FGFA or Tejas. Only ADA has got to be blamed for Tejas's failures. But that isn't the topic of discussion
Why compare BrahMos active service missile with some thing concept (I guess)Just go back and read my post again using your brain. I told you about SCALP to show that even medium weight fighters have strike weapons. So just because a Sukhoi can carry Brahmos, it doesn't mean it is superior. Is it so difficult to understand? Plus if you had actually bothered to google Brahmos 3, you would have known that Brahmos will soon be available to medium weight fighters as well.
Yet BrahMos is domestically producedBrahmos is not domestically produced. The fact that you don't even know this speaks volume. The so called "production centres" of Brahmos are nothing more than assembly workshops
is the design of IAC-II frozen :suspicious:Again, go back and read. The difficulties with MTOW will exist, the weight of IAC-2 is already decided. And ACs today carry heterogeneous combination of aircraft. So suggesting that IAC-2 will be optimized to carry a particular type of aircraft is stupid.
Yes we do. If the navy plans to double its surface fleet in the next 15 years, we can buy a paltry 80 jets.Do we have enough $$$ to pump in F-35?
if you have doubts in F 35 series you should talk to Col.Ajay Shukla He is on twitter and shoot your QuestionsThe present partner countries of F35 programme and rethinking there approach towards it....
Its cost is sky rocketing and many experts claim that it is not what is was meant to be....
The orders are reducing or are at hault or re negotiations are going on....
The partner countries like Australia and Canada were or are facing issues regarding it....
the capability or potency of the aircraft is under scanner.......
but wait its the best..... Why ?
1) It is foreign
2) It is too costly
3) It is the only available 5th gen so it has the monopoly
and top of it
4) We need not to make our own.(After paying that much we wont be able to thats a different case)
I am no expert but just listen to world around....
They need buyers for F35 to reduce its cost and they want to trap India aswell.....
Do we have enough $$$ to pump in F-35?
We can't even decide on Rafale and talking about F-35.
Any idea about lifetime cost of other planes? Below is a 2012 article for F35.Yes we do. If the navy plans to double its surface fleet in the next 15 years, we can buy a paltry 80 jets.
Each of their three submarine projects alone are as big as Rafale deal.
The Scorpene deal that we signed in 2005 was bigger than the Su-30MKI deal. Where do you think they got the money from?
I didnt get your point ... you want me to tweet asking him a question or what?if you have doubts in F 35 series you should talk to Col.Ajay Shukla He is on twitter and shoot your Questions
Pointless to compare them as they're differently designed for different purpose. T-50 is Russia's best aircraft, whereas F-35 is only the 2nd best aircraft of the US/UK. Bare in mind, F-35 is stealthier.f-35 C PAK-FA
length -- 15.7 m 19.8 m
wing span -- 13.1 m 13.35 m
empty weight -- 15800 kg 18000 kg
max takeoff weight -- 31800 kg 35000 kg
range -- 2500 km 3500 km
now make your calculation and decide which one to go.
F-35 advantages: 1. Flying aircraft and in advanced phases of design
2. only known stealth CATOBAR supported aircraft
3. donno for sure but it might stealthier than PAK-FA
PAK-FA advantages: 1. 50% share in design and development phase
2. Indigenous manufacturing and full TOT
3. Russia is more trusted partner than usa
4. and most importantly higher service ceiling , combat radius , 3d-thrust vectoring , exp in flying sukhoi made aircrafts
It's no longer $1.45 Trill. It's dropped to less than $1 Trill, $857 Billion today.Any idea about lifetime cost of other planes? Below is a 2012 article for F35.
Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | Reuters
Real contracts are a better bet.The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official, a move that could boost international support for the program.
58 jets at $11.6 Billion puts the lifecycle cost at $200 Million per aircraft. That's a very good price. The deal comes with 40 years of support and many years of training. That's $300 million per year. That's affordable.Australia will order 58 more F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) for A$12.4 billion ($11.61 billion), Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Wednesday, a purchase that will raise its air combat power to among the world's most advanced.