BS on first sentence itself. We do not have any GAN based AESA right now. Uttam is an GaAS radar. We are working on GaN based radar so as others. When we will get GaN based radar, others too will get it much before us as they have AESA almost a decade before us.
1)Then what's the point of this statement if we're getting by the time mwf will be ready. Then we're getting it. Does that mean it is inferior to others what are trying to explain?? I said mwf will have GaN based radars compared to gripen. So you replied me this whose final conclusion is were are working on GaN based radars, do you mean we couldn't make it.
What is bs in first statement..
Why are you repeating this rudimentary rant without relevance. Even if it does with MTOW , by the time it gets airborne, it would have consumed 150 KG fuel. So it is not important whether it operates at highest MTOW or not. What is important is what is MTOW. If you have to operate a car at 120 KMPH, Maruti and Mercedes both will do that but Mercedes will do it much less effort.
[/QUOTE]
2) Look of iaf would have felt that they need a 75/125 they would have used it ,only you're saying it that mwf need a 75/125, they have 2 option of American ones still preferring f414 because it is enough for it , and it's a cropped delta wing which has less drag than mirage like delta wings...
If they wanted to use same engine, why did they designed the plane which utilizes its power fully. They could have made the plane with MTOW of 21 tons or above had it had the same MTOW to power ratio. Or do you want to say that they intentionally kept it low?
[/QUOTE]
3)Lol this is not what f16 was made for its only job was to use it where f15 would have been over kill. USAF had a basic requirement which it fullfiled then why would they make a 21 ton f16 I don't get it why.
If you see from f16 block 15 TO block 62 there have been already alot of enhanced which have increased its payload capacities. I don't get it this 21 tons bs
You gave the example of Mirage by quoting 94 KN engine. you even do not know that it is dry thrust which is important for MTOW not afterburner. Afterburner comes into picture only at the time of take off and some extreme maneuvers. Planes flies all the time without afterburner so MTOW is related to dry thrust and not wet thrust. Dry thrust of M2K is higher than MWF yet both has same MTOW. So even by this logic, MWF is a batter design.
[/QUOTE]
4)Well I said the same thing before mwf is better than mirage, also considering thrust to weight ratio.
with similar weight & mtow. However you said dry thrust is important so anyways mwf is more aerodynamic than mirage 2000. And the dry thrust difference is just 5.2kn is this problem to you(58.8vs64kn) still mwf will perform better than mirage 2000 on dry thrust at mtow, better fuel economy better aerodynamics and it also has canards..
We are not comparing combat scenarios. We are discussing which design is optimum. If I go simply by your logic, even though MWF is a batter design as it does the same thing with less powerful engine. It can escort and carry as many Air to air missile as F16. So even buy your logic. MWF is a batter plane.
[/QUOTE]
5)I never said mwf is inferior you're the one who is repeating this rudimentary rant please read again.