AGM 158c is integrated on the P8A so if the US is willing to sell it to you it shouldn't be a problem to launch it from the P8I.
He had to follow courses in public relations
They may be keeping it as a bargaining trump card for mmrca or IN fighter aviation contract . Just like you ( i mean french) sabotaged the integration of Meteor missile with mirage.
We even do not try for the French Mirage because the radar range is too short, we are not SAAB which integrate Meteor on an unsuitable platform.
You didn't integrated it because French air force didn't asks for it, but in our case IAF wants it on our mirages. If i ama not wrong, the integration cost will be payed by IAF.
And the lucrativeness of Meteor is not just its Dmax, its tail chase range & immunity towards EW.
For MRFA, it won't even get shortlisted, so there's nothing to worry about on that front.
SH won't get shorlisted by the IAF. And the reasons for the previous rejection during MMRCA did not even have anything to do with capability, but more to do with the age of the jet and its future upgrade potential. And after 10 years, the same reasons make it even worse.
Even Finland is currently questioning the future viability of the USN's SH fleet when the USN is seriously planning to remove most of the SH by 2040 and abandoning any upgrade program. It quite literally has no future.
The Chinese are expected to operate multiple carriers with next gen jets after 2030. So the only way for the USN to compete is by replacing all their SHs with the NGAD. And in order to speed up the program, the USN has decided to cut SH production beyond 2021. They plan to get the NGAD operational before 2030, and likely replace all their SH by 2040. So even the latest Block III SHs being delivered today will not see full service life.
The US is looking for a bakra that will continue the SH production line, while they themselves believe it's no longer a viable capability to deal with the threat that India also faces.
In order to make any purchase viable, the captive air force must also operate the same jet to the same time period as we plan to. The French plan to operate the Rafale up to 2065, so that's viable for us since it will at least go through one more French-funded upgrade when our jets come up for MLUs. However the SH is now getting its last USN-funded upgrade, after which it will be set up for retirement. While the IN may risk it with a measley 36 jets, the IAF will definitely not risk 150-200 jets on such an uncertain future.
For the navy, if the Rafale is not workable, then I'd actually say we should abandon MRCBF and go for NGAD once it hits IOC before 2030. In the meantime, we should upgrade the Mig-29K to Mig-35 standards. The Mig-29s can then be replaced by TEDBF from 2035-40. And the 3rd carrier, which is surely going to get delayed, will get the NGAD.
Nah it's not his friends, but still I think buying f18 for the IAF doesn't offer that much capability jump the f15ex will, and the way he is talking about f18 it's as if it will defeat every other plane but to me it looks ika a fat pig.
So the IAF wanted to pay us to do the integration of Meteor on Mirage 2000, then wanted to order one or two hundred Meteor and we refused to do it because we didn't like you or because we didn't like you as a customer.
His thumb rules apply perhaps to MSA but doesn't apply to other planes. Assessing the take-off weight with a single criterion is not very serious.
Is that you understand from my post?So the IAF wanted to pay us to do the integration of Meteor on Mirage 2000, then wanted to order one or two hundred Meteor and we refused to do it because we didn't like you or because we didn't like you as a customer.
Let me clarify it, IAF was the one who pays for the integration yet you denied,the reason for your reluctance is just simple business, you just want rafale deals to get it inked and you scared any integration of meteor with mirage will jeopardize the rafale deal.
Admin pls move last few posts including this one to mmrca or rafale thread.
You really have completely paranoid reasoning, a Mirage even with Meteor will never be a serious competitor to a Rafale. The reality is that the MICA is perfectly suited to the capabilities of the Mirage, much more so than the METEOR.
Was holding my breath to see this
@randomradio you don’t know lolwa.
We are going to fly Exxx from INS Vikrant and apparently from some speedboats too using lolwa tech.
Meteors on M2000 will actually increase the sale of Rafale since the M2000 can't use the Meteor fully due to its inferior radar. Only the Rafale with AESA can use the Meteor fully.
Anyway M2000 cannot accept Meteor due to its design limitations.
As you can see the entire fuselage can't handle Meteor. It interferes with the landing gears from all sides. And the underwing has only 2 hardpoints, 1 is needed for fuel tank and the other is needed for WVR.
At best, only the central point can carry 1 single Meteor, but that's useless. You need a minimum of 2 in order to make the shot count.
Hence no Meteors for M2000. And this extends to all other missiles except for MICA. The aircraft can't carry anything except MICA.
I suppose once the Rafale-M is tested from our carriers, we will know for sure.
We will get everything from them including the engine being manufactured in India. wait and watch.
You need to know that when we compare CCC with LERX, there is no difference in enhancement of lift till between 4* AOA till about 2* short of stall AOA. CCC gives about 2* higher stall AOA and thats it. The increase in Clmax for both remains same between these AOA values.
It applies to every aircraft which uses Vicky configuration of 195m deck run, 14* ramp with 50m ramp length and 28kts wind on deck. The deck acceleration has nothing to do with lifting ability of the aircraft. That comes into play after ramp exit. F-18 has 20* wingsweep and Rafale has 48* wingsweep. At MTOW, Rafale has 536kgs/sqm wingloading and SH F-18 has 644 kgs/sqm wingloading. Now if we calculate the equivalent loading of SH F-18 wing with Rafale, we get Cos20*/Cos48*=1.4 or SH F-18 can have 754 kgs/sqm wingloading and yet have same take off speed. This is based on the factor that at about 12-16* AOA for deck exit, the Cl max figure for both aircraft due to CCC and LERX will be same. Minor differences will come due to the airfoil section used. I had told RA Ahuja about my calculations and asked him not to waste money on trials in USA. he just told me that the trials have been completed and yet again my calculations have been proven by actual trials. I wish I could share whatsapp messages here between him and me. I have to keep them secret. I had congratulated him about two months back for SH F-18 deal. What most do not know is that F18-3 comes with 414EPE which has twice the generator power compared to legacy 414-400 and its electronics are going to be far more powerfull compared to any fighter presently flying in the world. It has more electrical power than anyother US fighter.
I know far more than anyone on this forum and also far more than anybody within MOD on this deal. I know what all Boeing is willing to do to get this probale order of over 200 aircraft for IAF & IN. French have burnt their bridges by hackling on offsets and also their stupidity of trying to force IAF to order more Rafale and extend the time limit of meeting offset targets. They had additional orders with them already. If you try and eat very fast, you choke yourself to death and French have done exactly same.
The question is any TOT involved or not, are they offering al31f like local production or a genuine technology assistance to develop the in house capability?
