sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
LOL, I don't know who should be more embarrassed, the IN website that confuse the British carrier with IAC1, or Shiv Aroor who claimed:
although the line under the picture itself says it's an artistic representation only.
The only F35 version that could be interesting for IN would be the C, but why should IN pay more money, for less flight performance than a naval FGFA, or even AMCA.
Why should they pay for completely new weapons, spares, logistics, maintenance and training, when they can have a lot of commonality to IAF fighters for?
Why should IN want high restrictions and very limited ToT, when they can have full freedom and access with naval FGFA, or AMCA?
I have no doubt, that IN will choose Rafale, or F18SH as a mature and cost-effective gap filler, till naval FGFAs will be ready and will use them later in secondary strike, or tanker roles.
what the Indian Navy says is an official impression of India's indigenous aircraft carrier,
although the line under the picture itself says it's an artistic representation only.
The only F35 version that could be interesting for IN would be the C, but why should IN pay more money, for less flight performance than a naval FGFA, or even AMCA.
Why should they pay for completely new weapons, spares, logistics, maintenance and training, when they can have a lot of commonality to IAF fighters for?
Why should IN want high restrictions and very limited ToT, when they can have full freedom and access with naval FGFA, or AMCA?
I have no doubt, that IN will choose Rafale, or F18SH as a mature and cost-effective gap filler, till naval FGFAs will be ready and will use them later in secondary strike, or tanker roles.