We'd not spend $15 Bn. for your desire for another 57 Rafale for IN. For the new stobar carrier that beautiful fulcrum would be best choice.
Best Wishes Sir, Hope to see the prototype soon....in defence manufacturing i hope same happens "David won Goliath"
Engine commonality for 36 planes? Seriously? We use more MiG-29K
ITs stupid to talk of engine commonality for a plane which is just 36 nos..
ITs stupid to talk of engine commonality for a plane which is just 36 nos..
The USN and USAF use F/A-18 E being the single seater and F being dual seater. but the aircraft is same.
there is no difference in airframe or any other criteria like how Rafale B or C is dfifferent than Rafale M.
Thus they dont have to worry too much about difference, only difference is tail hook for carrier born plane.
It is heavy because Carrier planes need to have stronger airframe and landing gear because taking and landing off from carrier requires the same. as carrier use is more stressful on the airframe and landing gear Thats why its heavy. Rafale M is heavier than Rafale B and its not just under carriage, the air frame as well, if you try to use Rafale C with say undercarriage of Rafale M and try to use it. I am sure the people who know aircraft designing will educate you. So technically Rafale M is not Rafale C + Strong under carriage + tail hook ..
On other hand F/A-18 uses same airframe for carrier based operation or land based operation hence IOC and FOC would have been easier, and faster.
there is no difference in airframe or any other criteria like how Rafale B or C is dfifferent than Rafale M.
Thus they dont have to worry too much about difference, only difference is tail hook for carrier born plane.
It is heavy because Carrier planes need to have stronger airframe and landing gear because taking and landing off from carrier requires the same. as carrier use is more stressful on the airframe and landing gear Thats why its heavy. Rafale M is heavier than Rafale B and its not just under carriage, the air frame as well, if you try to use Rafale C with say undercarriage of Rafale M and try to use it. I am sure the people who know aircraft designing will educate you. So technically Rafale M is not Rafale C + Strong under carriage + tail hook ..
On other hand F/A-18 uses same airframe for carrier based operation or land based operation hence IOC and FOC would have been easier, and faster.
I do not want to share full details but it was a very sad state of affairs with NLCA being quoted as a failure in every second statement and worst part was that it was also being quoted as a bench mark. LOL.
Please do not share any detail here about your plane which can be later used to sabotage the MSA project, just rough overview is enough, remember that we have more than enough Jaichands in this country and apart from that a forum is a public platform which is visible to everyone.
It seems like IN navy considers the present design of NLCA as not a good one and want Canards .. guess they want something that looks like a Rafale. Would they say same about F/A-18 also "... we need plane with canards .."
With canards the stealth would be limited and hence LERX should be better, Rather its same case like we know what we want but not sure what we actually need.
With canards the stealth would be limited and hence LERX should be better, Rather its same case like we know what we want but not sure what we actually need.
These 36 planes are only the first batch, every one knows that.
IAF will received a minimum of 80 Rafale. If you add some for IN, it takes sens.
It's useless to have an air force fighter heavier when you don't need it.
NO.
If canards use the same geometric config thant the main wing (it's not the case of Rafale), it's not a problem.
The canards become serrated wings if it is on the same plane as wings. Why would you want to make holes in your wing? Canards serve a purpose of vortex generation and hence are generally above the plane of wings. Tejas uses "cranks" and a double delta wing to do this job.
Canards reduce the lift coefficient of wings by acting as a barrier in front of it. Canards also provide lift themselves and may cancel this reduced lift but that will be at a cost of increased drag and reduced stealth.
With the way things are going, we can expect triple digits for both IAF and IN.
How long will it take to make a prototype ?
Can we expect in two years ?
CoZ after delivery of Rafales in 2019 , we might order next tranche of Rafales . Or a large MII itself.
I want your project to run smoothly, but couldn't resist asking.
Apparently two years from his previous posts.
Anyway, Rafale and MSA don't really compete with each other in the short term. MSA directly competes with FGFA and AMCA in the short term and long term.
While MSA can't do a lot to affect Rafale's entry into the IAF, it can completely demolish IN's dream of operating the Rafale compounded further due to Rafale's price and its deficiencies on Stobar.
I will be very happy if MSA could take care of IN & Forward bases requirements,.
Rest will be bonus .
Rafale M (heavier model of the rafale family) weight nearly 10.5 tons dry and can carry 9.5 tons of loads. Not to speak of the lighter C or B.
SH18 weight over 13.8 tons and is limited to 8 tons.
low effectivity of the US product
