J20 Stealth Fighter

[MiG-29SMT]

The MIG 31 was a master piece's even ravelling to this day, a true master piece's.

It was but everything depends if its strategy is correct, India does not need to panic about J-20 or even J-15 or J-31 these aircraft are crap.

J-31 can not carry a large payload internally if it wants to go with a decent payload everything will be outside in weapons airborne on external racks basically it becomes visible no stealth. it has short range.

conclusion it is crap only useful against small players like Vietnam or Philipines.


J-20 uses external fuel tanks and on stealth mission its shallow weapons load is unable to carry long range offensive weapons.

even B-2 has limitations once they attack there are SLBM to answer the attack and kaput, the enemy will punish with weapons of mass destruction, so basically even B-2 is crap.


Weapons have a scope of usefulness as long as they are tactical or strategic.


J-20 is tactical wepon just for export or small conflicts.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The chinese couldn't create a large bay due to the massive engines and large amount of fuel's needed for it. i
It took a large amount of space for a smaller size considering it's large size's.

they can not, J-20 is a heavy fighter and relatively small, J-31 is worst, you have to always consider this a nuclear exchange means the ecology gets damage and the international commerce gets deeply damage.

On June 15 2020 you saw a China scared, they know India is like Russia will punish an enemy with nukes, this means a collapsed economy and ecology.

If the neighbour is close, it means the economy of both nations will suffer.

So J-20 is a make happy weapon for nationalists, but on a big war, it is crap, this is more effective

I mean Brahmos, remember stealth aircraft have very small production numbers too, so you have that they need to face larger number of non stealthy aircraft and air to air missiles fail.

SAM will make non stealth fighters easy targets so for J-10s layered anti aircraft weapons will crush them, a few J-20 will not change India`s response.

China knows it, but the Chinese are similar to imperial Japan they think a few victories mean world domination, reality Check NATO will crush them.

 

[no smoking]

Well with the IHI completing the XF 9's capable's of producing the 200 KN's thrust's the chinese will be really face a difficult situatione's.

Well, first of all, Japanese claims XF-9 is producing 150kn thrust not 200KN.
Secondly, as the first large thrust engine (>100kn) ever produced by Japanese, it is very doubtful they can produce something far better than F119: smaller size, similar thrust: the last XF5-1 engine with 50kn was only a toy comparing to the complexity of XF-9.
Thirdly, if you check the material TMS-138A (4th generation alloy) that Japanese prepared for the 5th generation engine, it includes Re-5.8wt%, Ru-3.6wt%, while F119 engine uses CMSX-4 (2 generation alloy) which has only 3wt% of Re and no Ru. Japanese is building up an engine with the material still under developing in laboratory. The Japanese air force will be bankrupted if they mass produce this engine with current design.

 

[no smoking]

I mean Brahmos, remember stealth aircraft have very small production numbers too, so you have that they need to face larger number of non stealthy aircraft and air to air missiles fail.

SAM will make non stealth fighters easy targets so for J-10s layered anti aircraft weapons will crush them, a few J-20 will not change India`s response.

Just wonder on which weapon, does India have superior number than China? Non stealthy aircraft? SAM? or even supersonic curise missile?

China knows it, but the Chinese are similar to imperial Japan they think a few victories mean world domination, reality Check NATO will crush them.

Not "India will crash them"?
You sounds like my neighbor's 5 years old son, every time he got scared or beat by other child, he always cry out "my daddy will crash you".

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Just wonder on which weapon, does India have superior number than China? Non stealthy aircraft? SAM? or even supersonic curise missile?



Not "India will crash them"?
You sounds like my neighbor's 5 years old son, every time he got scared or beat by other child, he always cry out "my daddy will crash you".

No you sound like a Chinese bot, i will give you a small detail you probably did not think, even a limited nuclear conflict where 30 or 40 nukes are used have the ability to kill 100 million people in each side, consider the main targets are the most developed cities where most industry and population is placed, in a limited nuclear war, most infrastructure such as hospital, super markets, transportation and commerce will be gone.


India is a nuclear power and radioactivity will kill the enviroment, destroying the water sources and crops, just a limited war will basically kill at least 300 million people, you think I am joking is because you are ignorant, J-20 was not designed for big wars, it is designed for imperialistic wars where a nuclear power will face a non nuclear power or a non nuclear power will fight a non nuclear power.

Nuclear War and Demographers' Projections on JSTOR

Ansley J. Coale, Nuclear War and Demographers' Projections, Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 483-493

www.jstor.org

Only fools think nuclear war is like a movie, the June 15 2020 was a fist fight to prevent a nuclear war, be realistic and stop your dreams, i can assure you nuclear war is no game or joke is a very serious affair and J-20 is not going to prevent the effects of it, it is like Germany when they have Me-262 could not stop Germany`s final defeat, same it is, and in fact J-20 is crap, only is used as propaganda machine, reality is harder for our chinese friends

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Just wonder on which weapon, does India have superior number than China? Non stealthy aircraft? SAM? or even supersonic curise missile?



Not "India will crash them"?
You sounds like my neighbor's 5 years old son, every time he got scared or beat by other child, he always cry out "my daddy will crash you".

The immediate effects of nuclear war, the completeness of the devastation it brings, and the detailed accounting of the expected human suffering have all been the subject of numerous studies. We begin with a war scenario which provides the basis for estimating the demands placed on the medical system, and sets the parameters for determining the direct and indirect economic impacts. The results are then reexamined in the context of what is known about organizational behavior and transformation.
Damage To Cities
Other papers in this volume have touched on many of the direct effects of a limited nuclear war. In order to avoid repetition we will briefly describe the scenario which is used as a point of departure for the issues raised in this paper. The following calculations are based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's CRP-2B scenario which assumes that the United States is exposed to 6,559 megatons (Mt) of nuclear explosives targeted primarily at military installations and 250 centers of population exceeding 50,000.
In the absence of warning and any subsequent evacuation, about 125 million people would be caught within the 2-psi circles (geographic areas which sustain a blast overpressure of 2 pounds per square inch); nearly 58 million would be inside the 15-psi region (Haaland et al., 1976; p. 20). In preparing the scenario, defense planners anticipated the delivery of 843 1-Mt warheads. It is estimated that each ground burst would leave a crater 1,000 feet (about 305 m) in diameter and 200 feet (about 61 m) deep. All structures from the point of detonation to a distance of 0.6 miles (about 1 km) would be leveled. Within the band between 1.7 and 2.7 miles (about 2.7 and 4.3 km) (5 psi) only skeletal remains of commercial and residential multistory structures would be observed. The 2-psi circle, characterized by moderately damaged structures (cracked load-bearing walls, windowless, contents blown into the streets), would reach 4.7 miles (about 7.6 km) (Office of Technology Assessment, 1979; pp. 27-31).
Damage to Electronic Systems: Effects of Electromagnetic Pulse
In contrast to the effects of blast and fire, the electromagnetic pulses (EMP), generated as a result of airbursts, leave no visible signs. Nonetheless, in theory such pulses could be highly damaging to microcircuitry. Because of the partial test ban treaty (1963) and the highly sensitive nature of EMP to national security, there is little hard evidence to conclude just how much damage might be incurred. However, recent military interest in new communications technology, such as the $10 billion MILSTAR project, to protect against the effects of EMP suggests how serious the problem may prove to be. Although much of what is known about EMP either is classified as secret information or is highly speculative, the danger the phenomenon poses is very real. Telecommunications networks, information processing equipment, and highly sophisticated medical technology would be vulnerable and could be irreparably harmed by such a blast.1 The problems this pulse poses for electronic equipment are twofold. Electrical power grids would pick up the EMP and transmit a transient spike in voltage to equipment drawing power at the time of the detonation. The rapid rise in voltage would damage microprocessors in a way similar to that resulting from lightning strikes. However, the rise in voltage would be typically 100 times faster, thereby rendering common surge protectors ineffective. Second, the electronic component itself could pick up the pulse and generate internally induced currents. The result could produce physical damage to the equipment.
High-altitude bursts (above 21 kin) produce EMP, which could blanket hundreds of thousands of square kilometers (Office of Technology Assessment, 1979; p. 22). A high-yield weapon detonated 200 miles (about 322 km) above Kansas would generate a pulse which would affect the entire country plus parts of Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, the entire region would be blacked out simultaneously, since the radiation produced by the explosion travels at the speed of light (p. 519). The economic and social ramifications of disrupting a highly developed electronic network would be staggering. Not a single facet of the economy would escape the effects of an interruption to the normal flow of communications, data retrieval, and the accompanying capacity to process vast amounts of information. Concern about the potential effects of EMP is new, and as a result little is yet known about the social and economic consequences which might be triggered.
Most large corporations have taken at least minimal steps to prepare disaster plans permitting them to carry on data processing functions in the event of sabotage or fire. Such plans normally involve securing the rights to utilize an alternative facility (e.g., sharing systems) and duplicating records on magnetic tape. Of course, this strategy will succeed only if the backup system is spared, an assumption which may be appropriate in the event of fire but less so given a nuclear exchange. Few corporations and governmental agencies, however, have actually taken steps to protect sensitive data processing equipment. These exceptions appear to be concentrated primarily in the financial sector and are prompted by considerations of liability as much as concern about social and economic impacts.2 Such protection is likely to fail, however, even in cases where an extreme amount of caution is exercised. For example, the Federal Reserve System, charged with the important task of tracking and controlling the nation's money supply, maintains a bombproof backup facility. However, this is the strongest link in the network. Few other banks or their corporate clients can boast of such a capability. Hence, despite the fact that the Federal Reserve's computers would most likely survive the war, little data would be available for them to process. The viability of the nation's electronic funds transfer and recordkeeping system turns on the degree of protection afforded by all its participants.
The sensitivity of the nation's credit system to computer failure was demonstrated recently when Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, revealed that ''something in the nature of a computer glitch" left the Bank of New York $30 billion overdrawn (November 20, 1985). To quell fears, the Fed was forced to make an unprecedented loan of $22.6 billion to the New York bank, the interest on which amounted to more than $5 million per day. The loan, according to Volcker, was made amid "increasing evidence of potential problems at other institutions around the country," all part of the computer network involved in the purchase and sales of government securities. This is, of course, a rather mild event in contrast to the prospects of disruption due to a nuclear exchange. It does, however, underscore the sensitivity of these financial systems, inviting speculation as to how economic recovery might proceed in the event of a total collapse.
Direct Consequences for Medical Care
Abrams (1984), in pulling together a plausible set of projections regarding the direct effects of such an attack, provides a sobering view of the situation. Abrams' calculations are based on the assumption that the attack is sudden, leaving the victims no time to take protective actions. Furthermore, the need for health care assistance is based on preattack medical procedures. Beginning with the fact that 73 percent of the nation' s populace resides in areas assumed to be attacked, along with 80 percent of the country's medical supplies, it quickly becomes evident that the need for care would far outpace the medical resources which survive the attack. However, it is the extent of the imbalance which is so startling. He concludes that of the 93 million survivors, 32 million would require medical care.3
It is difficult to imagine how the estimated 48,000 physicians surviving the attack could cope with a workload which would tax 1.3 million (Abrams, 1984; p. 657). How long medical care organizations could continue to function effectively under such conditions is open to question. There is, however, a body of research regarding the sociology of organizations which suggests that cohesiveness and the will to carry on in such an overwhelmingly stressful environment would be a limiting factor in delivering care. This perspective is developed more fully below.
Go to:
The Lingering Effects of Nuclear War
The longer-term effects of war would pose an altogether different set of challenges for the medical care system. Maintenance of a reasonable standard of health may be impossible without the rapid recovery of the economy's critical industries: petroleum, petrochemicals, electronics, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals. Without these it is difficult to imagine how the potential for the transmission of disease could be controlled.
Leaning (1983; p. 424) has forcefully argued that some of the greatest risks to health lie in the postattack period. The prolonged period of crowding in makeshift fallout shelters, which are likely to be poorly ventilated and ill equipped to treat or dispose of wastes, would create the conditions for the rapid spread of disease. Providing that the survivors endure this period, they would face similar difficulties outside. The lack of sanitary systems, the absence of power for refrigeration, the presence of millions of unburied dead, and a disturbed ecological balance fostering the rapid growth in insect populations would combine to produce an environment fertile for the contraction and transmission of disease. The complex interactive effects of stress, malnutrition, and an immune system damaged by radiation would tend to weaken the physiological defenses to a point where people may succumb to diseases presently considered to be only moderately virulent.4
It might not be unreasonable to anticipate postwar pandemics similar to those just described. Survivors weakened by malnutrition could not expect to be vaccinated nor would antibiotics be available in sufficient quantities to prevent complications.
The focus of health care therefore shifts from the immediate problems of administering postattack aid to the longer-term issues surrounding reconstruction. The number of casualties produced by hunger and exposure would not be significantly altered by the availability of trained medical personnel and pharmaceuticals. Access to food and energy would prove to be the key to survival. The prospects for avoiding catastrophe are tied inextricably to the prospects for reconstruction.
Prospects for a General Economic Recovery
The economic infrastructure which is left intact after the attack would play a key role in determining the length of time during which such life-threatening conditions might persist. The survivors would face the critical task of rebuilding a viable economy capable of rapidly reallocating undamaged capital and distributing uncontaminated foodstuffs. The few studies which have dealt with the issue of economic recovery are sobering. Potential Vulnerability Affecting National Survival (PVANS), a study prepared in 1970 for the Office of Civil Defense by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) (Goen et al., 1970), estimated the fewest number of nuclear detonations required to "prevent economic recovery." The attack which SRI found to be most effective in achieving this end combined the destruction of the industrial capacity located in 71 of the nation's largest standard metropolitan statistical areas,5 and SRI concluded that a crippling blow could be delivered by a combination of 500 1-Mt and 200 to 300 additional 100-kiloton (kt) weapons. This number is only 10 percent of that posed by the formulators of the FEMA CRP-2B scenario. The direct effects of the PVANS attack, in terms of health care delivery, would not differ significantly from the projections sketched above. However, the economic dislocations resulting from the attack may create a whole new set of health issues.
The SRI results have been subjected to refinements by Katz (1982; p. 115) and others (Sassen and Willis, 1974). These studies suggest that an even lower exchange threshold (100 to 300 Mt) would result in unacceptable economic disruptions and bottlenecks.
Reasons for Doubting Economic Projections
The picture, grim as it is, may understate the impacts. The tools available to researchers are based on historic patterns of production and institutional arrangements. However, these are likely to change during the period of reconstruction. It is highly unlikely that the social order, for example, would remain static. There are a number of other reasons for doubting the economic projections. The methodology should be questioned. There may be insufficient reserves of domestic oil and gas to meet the needs of both reconstruction and production of essential consumer items. Trading patterns may not return to their prewar state. The destruction of data processing and retrieval facilities would make it difficult to conduct monetary reform or reestablish property fights, both of which have, in past wars, been instrumental preconditions for a rapid recovery.
Naturally, there are a large number of other issues which could have been addressed. The few we have chosen to include offer a perspective which is somewhat different from that of previously published works. They also reflect some highly speculative thoughts regarding the extent to which recent trends in the economy might affect the speed and nature of recovery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219185/

if you think

it will defeat it

continue dreaming

 

[fire starter]

Just wonder on which weapon, does India have superior number than China? Non stealthy aircraft? SAM? or even supersonic curise missile?



Not "India will crash them"?
You sounds like my neighbor's 5 years old son, every time he got scared or beat by other child, he always cry out "my daddy will crash you".

Bro first accept your dead soldiers then show your superiority here.

 

[Emperor Kalki]

No you sound like a Chinese bot, i will give you a small detail you probably did not think, even a limited nuclear conflict where 30 or 40 nukes are used have the ability to kill 100 million people in each side, consider the main targets are the most developed cities where most industry and population is placed, in a limited nuclear war, most infrastructure such as hospital, super markets, transportation and commerce will be gone.


India is a nuclear power and radioactivity will kill the enviroment, destroying the water sources and crops, just a limited war will basically kill at least 300 million people, you think I am joking is because you are ignorant, J-20 was not designed for big wars, it is designed for imperialistic wars where a nuclear power will face a non nuclear power or a non nuclear power will fight a non nuclear power.

Nuclear War and Demographers' Projections on JSTOR

Ansley J. Coale, Nuclear War and Demographers' Projections, Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 483-493

www.jstor.org

Only fools think nuclear war is like a movie, the June 15 2020 was a fist fight to prevent a nuclear war, be realistic and stop your dreams, i can assure you nuclear war is no game or joke is a very serious affair and J-20 is not going to prevent the effects of it, it is like Germany when they have Me-262 could not stop Germany`s final defeat, same it is, and in fact J-20 is crap, only is used as propaganda machine, reality is harder for our chinese friends

Oh god....

 

[BangaliBabu]

Just wonder on which weapon, does India have superior number than China? Non stealthy aircraft? SAM? or even supersonic curise missile?



Not "India will crash them"?
You sounds like my neighbor's 5 years old son, every time he got scared or beat by other child, he always cry out "my daddy will crash you".

don't rant here dhakkan. Go someplace else and take out that dump from your mouth. Maybe SDF is the better choice for a poor ego.

 

[J20!]

No you sound like a Chinese bot, i will give you a small detail you probably did not think, even a limited nuclear conflict where 30 or 40 nukes are used have the ability to kill 100 million people in each side, consider the main targets are the most developed cities where most industry and population is placed, in a limited nuclear war, most infrastructure such as hospital, super markets, transportation and commerce will be gone.


India is a nuclear power and radioactivity will kill the enviroment, destroying the water sources and crops, just a limited war will basically kill at least 300 million people, you think I am joking is because you are ignorant, J-20 was not designed for big wars, it is designed for imperialistic wars where a nuclear power will face a non nuclear power or a non nuclear power will fight a non nuclear power.

Nuclear War and Demographers' Projections on JSTOR

Ansley J. Coale, Nuclear War and Demographers' Projections, Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 483-493

www.jstor.org

Only fools think nuclear war is like a movie, the June 15 2020 was a fist fight to prevent a nuclear war, be realistic and stop your dreams, i can assure you nuclear war is no game or joke is a very serious affair and J-20 is not going to prevent the effects of it, it is like Germany when they have Me-262 could not stop Germany`s final defeat, same it is, and in fact J-20 is crap, only is used as propaganda machine, reality is harder for our chinese friends

Why are you pivoting to nuclear weapons to dispute that India has no equivalent to the J20 and won't have one in place for a decade and more to come?

Even in the nuclear sphere, China has many more nuclear ballistic missiles capable of hitting Indian industrial and population centers than India does capable of hitting China's eastern seaboard.

How many AgniV's does India have operational VS DF26, DF17, DF41, DF31 and DF5? Brahmos is an ASM. Is it even nuclear capable? H6K + CJ10 in terms of nuclear delivery is a capability that the IAF cannot match aside from 50 M2000's with short range nuclear missiles incapable of reaching China's coastal cities.

Stop trying to hide behind nuclear exchanges between China and India because either way India would suffer many more casualties than China would. India doesn't have enough nuclear delivery systems in place to compensate for the damage it would receive in an exchange WITH China. That's just a fact. Even the Chinese Navy could cover the entire Indian mainland from the SCS with JL2s from their Type 094's.

 

[ARVION]

Well, first of all, Japanese claims XF-9 is producing 150kn thrust not 200KN.
Secondly, as the first large thrust engine (>100kn) ever produced by Japanese, it is very doubtful they can produce something far better than F119: smaller size, similar thrust: the last XF5-1 engine with 50kn was only a toy comparing to the complexity of XF-9.
Thirdly, if you check the material TMS-138A (4th generation alloy) that Japanese prepared for the 5th generation engine, it includes Re-5.8wt%, Ru-3.6wt%, while F119 engine uses CMSX-4 (2 generation alloy) which has only 3wt% of Re and no Ru. Japanese is building up an engine with the material still under developing in laboratory. The Japanese air force will be bankrupted if they mass produce this engine with current design.

Their final target is of 200kn please read my Post's properly.

 

[ARVION]

Just wonder on which weapon, does India have superior number than China? Non stealthy aircraft? SAM? or even supersonic curise missile?



Not "India will crash them"?
You sounds like my neighbor's 5 years old son, every time he got scared or beat by other child, he always cry out "my daddy will crash you".

Sir respect you as an old member of the DFI's, but please don't go into a bheja fry mode, please.

 

[fire starter]

Why are you pivoting to nuclear weapons to dispute that India has no equivalent to the J20 and won't have one in place for a decade and more to come?

Even in the nuclear sphere, China has many more nuclear ballistic missiles capable of hitting Indian industrial and population centers than India does capable of hitting China's eastern seaboard.

How many AgniV's does India have operational VS DF26, DF17, DF41, DF31 and DF5? Brahmos is an ASM. Is it even nuclear capable? H6K + CJ10 in terms of nuclear delivery is a capability that the IAF cannot match aside from 50 M2000's with short range nuclear missiles incapable of reaching China's coastal cities.

Stop trying to hide behind nuclear exchanges between China and India because either way India would suffer many more casualties than China would. India doesn't have enough nuclear delivery systems in place to compensate for the damage it would receive in an exchange WITH China. That's just a fact. Even the Chinese Navy could cover the entire Indian mainland from the SCS with JL2s from their Type 094's.

still our nuclear weapons are capable enough to shatter your dreams of becoming super power. Anyway both country follow NFU policy so this discussion is irrelevant.

 

[J20!]

still our nuclear weapons are capable enough to shatter your dreams of becoming super power. Anyway both country follow NFU policy so this discussion is irrelevant.

Capable but not numerous. Agni 5 could reach Beijing, but how many Agni Vs does India have VS PLARF ballistic missiles?

It would literally be suicidal for Indian military officials to attempt to respond to PLAAF stealth fighters with nuclear weapons.

So why bring them up like @MiG-29SMT is trying to do? And as you say India and China both have NFU policies for their nuclear arsenals.

 

[ARVION]

Capable but not numerous. Agni 5 could reach Beijing, but how many Agni Vs does India have VS PLARF ballistic missiles?

It would literally be suicidal for Indian military officials to attempt to respond to PLAAF stealth fighters with nuclear weapons.

So why bring them up like @MiG-29SMT is trying to do? And as you say India and China both have NFU policies for their nuclear arsenals.

I think we should stick to the subject please.

 

[ARVION]

Oh god....

What I see is a series of bheja fry mode's.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Why are you pivoting to nuclear weapons to dispute that India has no equivalent to the J20 and won't have one in place for a decade and more to come?

Even in the nuclear sphere, China has many more nuclear ballistic missiles capable of hitting Indian industrial and population centers than India does capable of hitting China's eastern seaboard.

How many AgniV's does India have operational VS DF26, DF17, DF41, DF31 and DF5? Brahmos is an ASM. Is it even nuclear capable? H6K + CJ10 in terms of nuclear delivery is a capability that the IAF cannot match aside from 50 M2000's with short range nuclear missiles incapable of reaching China's coastal cities.

Stop trying to hide behind nuclear exchanges between China and India because either way India would suffer many more casualties than China would. India doesn't have enough nuclear delivery systems in place to compensate for the damage it would receive in an exchange WITH China. That's just a fact. Even the Chinese Navy could cover the entire Indian mainland from the SCS with JL2s from their Type 094's.

what a childish guy it is obvious you do not comprehend what means nuclear war, for starters China and India have high density

China will not win nor India will win only a fool thinks China and India can win, the fact is

1. Tokyo (Population: 37,435,191)
2. Delhi (Population: 29,399,141)
3. Shanghai (Population: 26,317,104)
4. Sao Paulo (Population: 21,846,507)
5. Mexico City (Population: 21,671,908)
6. Cairo (Population: 20,484,965)
7. Dhaka (Population: 20,283,552)
8. Mumbai (Population: 20,185,064)
9. Beijing (Population: 20,035,455)
10. Osaka (Population: 19,222,665)

only 10 cities have 200 million people got it? if there is a war there is not need for too many nukes to kill 100 million people in China or India.

Largest Cities by Population 2024

J-20 is utterly useless, China and India will be highly mouled, continue dreaming, India already has the ability to stop China only fools think J-20 makes China superior, J-20 is for small war, Agni V for big war

 

[Steven Rogers]

I am pretty sure gripen can supercruise in the air too and not just on the paper....
And for the mwf supercruise was never envisaged....so not so sure about that...
But I also hope for some serendipity...

Current Gripen C/D does supercruise with one DT and A2A configuration at mach 1.1....

 

[ARVION]

Current Gripen C/D does supercruise with one DT and A2A configuration at mach 1.1....

But even that is limited suercruise correct me if I am wrong's.

 

[Steven Rogers]

But even that is limited suercruise correct me if I am wrong's.

It has its advantages,it will not require massive afterburners to go supersonic and launch its a2a payload....