What's new

Make In India - Fighter Jet musings - News, Developments, Updates - F16,F18, Gripen, Any other

. . .
IN is not exactly impressed with the MiG-29K.
It seems to need repair after almost every landing,
Throw them a few dollars they will dance to any tune.

Problem is we are not rich. Can't afford multi country hardware
Why did they choose mig29 earlier ? Why doesn't Russia face same problem.

There is problem with maintaining the jets.

We must choose wise and cost effective as well.

If we don't have capacity to build one how can we maintain someone else's product with such assurance
 
.
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-may-choose-swedish-gripens-or-f-16s-4823046/

Not more Rafales, IAF may choose Gripens or F-16s

The selection between these two single-engine fighter jets will be done using the Strategic Partnership (SP) model while there are no immediate plans to induct more twin-engine Rafale aircraft.

Written by Sushant Singh | New Delhi | Updated: September 1, 2017 12:52 am
rafale-jet-759.jpg
36 Rafale fighters will be inducted by 2023. IAF has 32 fighter squadrons against the required 42.
RELATED NEWS
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has shortlisted American F-16 and Swedish Gripen fighter aircraft for induction into its fleet to make up the shortfall of fighter squadrons. The selection between these two single-engine fighter jets will be done using the Strategic Partnership (SP) model while there are no immediate plans to induct more twin-engine Rafale aircraft. “We are currently focused single-mindedly on the issue of procurement of single-engine fighters following the SP route,” a defence ministry official told The Indian Express. “Procurement of a twin-engine fighter is not on priority right now as the focus today is on procurement of single-engine fighters.”

The Defence Ministry had signed an order for 36 Rafale fighters with the French government last September, which will be inducted by 2023. There is a follow-up clause for buying another 36 fighters as part of the deal, which may be exercised at a later date.

The official said the Request for Information will be issued in a couple of months for approximately 100 single-engine fighters, out of which 18 will be brought to India in a fly-away condition. The rest will be manufactured under ‘Make in India’ and will include technology transfer as mandated in the SP Model.

The official confirmed only two aircraft available in the global market — F-16 and Gripen — meet IAF’s requirement criteria. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of F-16, and Saab, which manufactures Gripen, have shown their interest in bringing their production lines to India. Last year, they had submitted their proposals, which were studied by the IAF.


The IAF’s strength of 42 fighter squadrons “is the minimum strength necessary to dominate a two-front conflict’’, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa had told The Indian Express in June. The IAF has 32 fighter squadrons and is tasked with tackling a two-front collusive threat from China and Pakistan. The reduced numbers place a severe handicap akin to a cricket team playing with seven players instead of 11, Dhanoa had said.

Due to retirement of vintage aircraft, the numbers will be going down further by 2021. By then, 11 squadrons of Mig-21 and Mig-27, which are 35 to 45 years old, will be retiring from service.

To mitigate the shortfall, besides choosing between F-16 and Gripen, the ministry is keen on IAF acquiring the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), another single-engine fighter. The IAF has placed an order for two squadrons of Tejas LCA and is in the process of placing orders for four additional LCA squadrons. But Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s production line of Tejas is unable to provide the aircraft on time, making the shortfall critical.
 
.
america is not trustfull

america giving money to pakistan

pakistan having american plans f16

america will not give tot

america plan is 40 year old

you want know more?
before making such comments, you have to know something about Strategic Relationships.
As of now, America is align more towards Indian than Pak.
For your query about ToT , whatever LM want to produce with TASL, they have to share its technology with its strategic partner ( which is the main requirement of SPM)
 
.
The Defence Ministry had signed an order for 36 Rafale fighters with the French government last September, which will be inducted by 2023. There is a follow-up clause for buying another 36 fighters as part of the deal, which may be exercised at a later date.

Nope, simply No!
The GtoG for the Rafale buy has an 18ACs option.
The second batch of 36 is a new buy from GoI to Fr.

When you quote a piece whose author can't correct
such a blatant error, assuming he's not giving us an
actual evidently wrong statement by the supposed
MoD official which would be worse, it's wasted BW.

Good day to you, Tay.
 
.
before making such comments, you have to know something about Strategic Relationships.
As of now, America is align more towards Indian than Pak.
For your query about ToT , whatever LM want to produce with TASL, they have to share its technology with its strategic partner ( which is the main requirement of SPM)
america will never support india aginst pakistan.
america knows pakistan power.
if pakistan put senction on america then america get stuck in afghanistan.
america is playing double game.
america is great satan.

f 16 is pakistan's speciiality. indian pilots will loose aginst pakistani f16 because pakistani pilot's long experience on f 16. pakistani airforce is very serious. indian airforce is mixed pickle airforce.

if india bys f 16 then indian mixed pickle airforce will loose.
 
.
america will never support india aginst pakistan.
Because its love for Pakistan is so sincere?
america knows pakistan power.
Which runs against your argument.
if pakistan put senction on america then america get stuck in afghanistan.
Pakistan? Sanctions? On what? And aren't you forgetting the UNSC veto?
america is playing double game.
Actually, so much so and for so long that we should say the US plays only one game,
shouldn't we? Their own, which they intend to win of course but still, not double at all!

america is great satan.
Then there are countless Satanic minions, i.e. mid sized Satans as with mid-sized sedans.

Don't take it too personal :-) but that list was doubtful at best.
Have a great day in any case, Tay.
 
Last edited:
.
america will never support india aginst pakistan.
This is what US is doing in recent era
america knows pakistan power.
They knows Pak's power hence, you tightens the Rules to release further financial aids
if pakistan put senction on america then america get stuck in afghanistan.
There are already several sanctions on **** entities including some companies providing parts for nuclear programs, sanctions on **** future political leaders (Indian and US declared terrorists)
america is playing double game.
India also know how to handle opposite poles together
f 16 is pakistan's speciiality. indian pilots will loose aginst pakistani f16 because pakistani pilot's long experience on f 16. pakistani airforce is very serious. indian airforce is mixed pickle airforce.
I know the level of seriousness. If I elaborate it than PDF admins gets furious and put ban on me. Don't force me to reveal the seriousness.
if india bys f 16 then indian mixed pickle airforce will loose.
IAF knows what they need and what they are procuring , don't take tension about it
 
.
This is what US is doing in recent era
us policy is big fail. soon they will return to pakistan begging for friendship. and pakistan wil ask usa to put sanctions on india.

They knows Pak's power hence, you tightens the Rules to release further financial aids
usa will stop ginving spare to mixed pickle airforce so mixed pickle airforce will cry and loose to pakistani superior airforce.

There are already several sanctions on **** entities including some companies providing parts for nuclear programs, sanctions on **** future political leaders (Indian and US declared terrorists)
****???? make no sense.

India also know how to handle opposite poles together
no big wrong. russia is now pakistan's iron brother. will give pakistan s400 and say no to india. indian forign policy is now a big fail.

long live china-pakistan-russia allince.

I know the level of seriousness. If I elaborate it than PDF admins gets furious and put ban on me. Don't force me to reveal the seriousness.
pakistani airforce is most lean and mean in asia. pakistan is now airforce power only second to china.

IAF knows what they need and what they are procuring , don't take tension about it
mixed pickle airforce is confused. they daily change their mind. 1 day they say rafale. 2nd day f16. 3rd day gripen. 4th day pakfa. 5th day tejas. lol :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha: mixed pickle airforce is having mental breakdown.:omghaha::omghaha:
 
.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/.../1/17&utm_term=Editorial - Daily News Roundup


Mattis reportedly threatens Swedish defense cooperation over nuclear treaty

By: Aaron Mehta   10 hours ago
Dagens Nyheterin reported this week that Swedish officials are upset by the letter, sent to Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist, which indicated defense industrial cooperation between the two nations could be endangered if Sweden signs onto the treaty, as is expected.

The report, translated into English for Defense News by Dagens Nyheterin security policy correspondent Mikael Holmström, said Mattis warned Hultqvist that signing the treaty could directly impact Sweden’s relationship with NATO.



Sweden is part of NATO’s so-called Gold Card program, which gives it privileged rights as a non-NATO member; that status is up for renewal in October. In addition, the letter stated that Sweden signing the nuclear ban would close the option of joining NATO in the future, according to Dagens Nyheterin.

The Swedish paper also cited a source raising fears that signing the nuclear agreement could impact defense industrial cooperation between Sweden and the U.S., including programs being worked on by Saab. Although not mentioned specifically, Saab is teamed with Boeing on a design for the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation trainer aircraft.

Pentagon spokesman Johnny Michael declined to comment on the letter itself, but said the U.S. “does have serious concerns with the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty, and strongly discourages states from signing or ratifying” as it contains provisions that “could potentially affect our ability to cooperate with parties to the treaty on issues of mutual interest. It also undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime.”

However, the U.S. “values its defense relationship with Sweden,” Michael added.

One hundred twenty-two countries agreed to endorse the treaty against nuclear weapons at the United Nations, which is up for a formal vote Sept. 20. Sweden was one of the nations that endorsed the treaty, and Foreign Minister Margot Wallström has previously stated Sweden intends to officially sign on. Hultqvist, for his part, is reportedly against signing the document.

Sign up for our Daily News Roundup - The top Defense News stories of the day
For more newsletters click here
The U.S. is a vocal critic of the nuclear weapons ban, due to its longstanding policy of nuclear deterrence, but Mattis reportedly threatening cooperation between the two nations over Sweden’s decision to sign the treaty surprised Jim Townsend, who spent eight years as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy and is now with the think tank Center for a New American Security.


Interview: Swedish Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist
Sweden’s minister of defense spoke with Defense News while in Washington for his first meeting with officials from the Trump administration.

By: Aaron Mehta
“You don’t use a threat to the bilateral relationship lightly; the impact on your own national security from actually using the leverage if you don’t get your way can be damaging. The cause had better be worth the risk,” Townsend said.

Townsend said it was not surprising the U.S. would push an ally on not signing the treaty, and he noted his office had expressed similar sentiments in the past. But adding a threat, as this letter reportedly did, strikes him as misguided.

“They are a close friend in a dangerous neighborhood, and so threatening that important relationship lacks some credibility. Do the Swedes really think we would downgrade our relationship to punish them for signing a nuclear ban treaty?” Townsend said. “However, if Sweden did join NATO, they would have to reverse their anti-nuke stance because NATO is a nuclear alliance and so Sweden as a NATO member would participate in the nuclear planning as well.”

Hultqvist, who is still under the threat of a no-confidence vote in Sweden over a security breach resulting from the Transport Agency’s outsourcing of an information technology database contract to IBM in 2015, told Defense News in a May interview that he was confident relations between his office and the Pentagon would remain strong under the Trump administration.

“I have no signals that anything has changed between the United States and Sweden. I think we have the same position we have had with all administrations,” he said May 17. “So I think there is stability in our relations. I am looking forward to discussing with him how to move forward and what we are going to do in the future.”
 
.
us policy is big fail. soon they will return to pakistan begging for friendship. and pakistan wil ask usa to put sanctions on india.
DAY DREAMING :omghaha:
usa will stop ginving spare to mixed pickle airforce so mixed pickle airforce will cry and loose to pakistani superior airforce
:rofl:
no big wrong. russia is now pakistan's iron brother. will give pakistan s400 and say no to india. indian forign policy is now a big fail.
Russia never cater beggars. They can't share any thing for free or even at compensated price because their economy is not strong enough. You guys can rely on sub standard chinese material
pakistani airforce is most lean and mean in asia. pakistan is now airforce power only second to china.
consult a good psychiatrist on urgent basis.
mixed pickle airforce is confused. they daily change their mind. 1 day they say rafale. 2nd day f16. 3rd day gripen. 4th day pakfa. 5th day tejas. lol :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha: mixed pickle airforce is having mental breakdown.:omghaha::omghaha:
I don't know what is you level of understandings but it should be below average because you generally believe on journo articles and non-official sources.

buddy, at the end of the day, You made my day awesome :rofl:

@The Eagle
He is a false flagger, look over it.

Good day to all.:victory1:
 
.
https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage....-39c-gripen-versus-the-su-30mkkmk2-flanker-g/

JAS-39 GRIPEN, SU-30MKK FLANKER-G
THE FLANKER-G KILLER: THE JAS-39C GRIPEN VERSUS THE SU-30MKK/MK2 FLANKER-G
NOVEMBER 14, 2013 RHK111 31 COMMENTS


Revised March 26, 2014. See bottom of the page for the complete revision history

**********


A JAS-39C Gripen of the Czechoslovakian Air Force. Photo courtesy of Saab AB thru Flickr
Aside from the F-16C, another aircraft that the Philippine Air Force (PhAF) has its sights on for the Philippines’ main combat aircraft is the JAS-39 Gripen. An informal survey by the Philippine News Agency just a couple of months ago showed that most PhAF pilots preferred to have the Gripen to be the country’s next fighter aircraft.[1] We’ve already seen how the F-16C could fare against the SU-30MKK in my blog, “The F-16C Block 50/52+ Viper versus the SU-30MKK/MK2 Flanker-G“, let us now take a look at how the JAS-39 could fare against the same adversary.

‘Aircraft Backgrounds’
The JAS-39 is made by the Swedish company “Saab” and first entered service with the Swedish Air Force in 1997. It is described as a lightweight Multi Role Fighter (MRF) and 250 aircrafts have been built so far in service with 6 countries around the world. The JAS-39C is the latest mass produced version of the aircraft introduced into service in 2003 with improvements like better avionics, in-flight refuelling capability and an improved oxygen system for long-duration flights. The aircraft’s official name is “Gripen” which is the Swedish word for “Griffin”,[2] a mythical creature with the body of a lion and the head and wings of an Eagle.

The SU-30 is an improved version of the SU-27 Flanker made by the Russian Federation’s “Sukhoi Company” and entered service with the Russian Air Force in 1996. It is described as a heavy, long-range, all-weather strike fighter and around 400+ aircrafts have been built so far in service with 9 countries around the world. The SU-30MKK is the special export version to China of the SU-30 which went into the Chinese Air Force service in 2000. China ordered 76 aircraft which were delivered between 2000-2003, and in case of any war, it will be China’s main frontline aircraft as it is its most capable combat aircraft right now.

The SU-30MK2 is the maritime version of the SU-30MKK intended for use by China on its carrier fleet if ever they do get to finally field them. It differs from the SU-30MKK mainly because it uses Chinese-made avionics. China has 24 of these, first delivered in 2004. The official NATO code name for the SU-30MKK is the “Flanker-G”.[3]

‘Evaluation Notes’
For the “Maneuverability” and “Payload and Range” sections, the following considerations were made:
– Weights with 100% internal fuel was used to try to simulate the aircrafts going into combat with full internal fuel after dropping their External Fuel Tanks.
– The weights of the armaments were not included as the RATIOS and DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BOTH AIRCRAFTS will remain the same if they will be armed with the same type and same number of armaments.
– Data for each aircraft was derived from various websites at [3][4][5].

‘Manueverability’
For both aircraft’s maneuvering capability, I am looking at their LIMIT LOAD FACTOR*, WING LOADING* and POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO.* I would’ve wanted to take a look at more aspects like Stall Speed, Maximum Alpha, etc., but those data are hard to come by for both aircraft. Hence, these should suffice for now. Remember that a lower Wing Loading means the aircraft can turn tighter and vice-versa, and a higher Thrust-to-Weight Ratio means the aircraft can go faster going straight up or straight down and vice-versa.


* SUMMARY
– POSITIVE LIMIT LOAD FACTOR: Even for both aircraft.
– WING LOADING: Favors the Gripen C with its decisive 23% lower wing loading.
– THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO: Almost even for both aircrafts, with a minute advantage for the Flanker-G.

+++ Typical of its delta-wing design, the Gripen has a relatively large wing compared to its size and weight, and this translates to excellent turning ability especially in the horizontal plane. With its advantage in wing loading and the even numbers for the TTWR, a clear advantage for the Gripen C in terms of maneuverability.

‘Payload and Range’
For Range, I am using INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION (INTFF)* as a rough indicator how far each aircraft can go based on the internal fuel available to them.


* SUMMARY
– INTFF: Favors the Flanker-G by a huge 68%, indicating it can travel 68% farther for the same engine fuel efficiency.
– PAYLOAD: Also favors the Flanker-G as it can carry a commanding 57% (2,890 kg) more load than the Gripen C.

+++ Here the Flanker-G’s ability as an OFFENSIVE aircraft shines as it shows it can carry more load and carry it much farther than the Gripen C, making it an ideal strike aircraft to complement its air superiority role.


An SU-30MKK Flanker-G of China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force. Photo courtesy of the Top81.cn Website
‘Air Combat-related Avionics and Weapons’
Here I am comparing the capability of both aircrafts in terms of Within Visual Range (WVR) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air combat thru their Avionics and Weapons available to them. Just some notes, though:
– Radar Cross Section (RCS) data are for “clean” aircrafts, with no armaments or fuel tanks
– Tracking range is assumed to be 85% of the Detection Range
– Closing velocity of 3,000 kph (equally divided to each aircraft) used to compute for First Look, First Shot advantage
– Missile impact is based on the top speed of its main BVR missiles
– Radar Detection Ranges and RCS data were taken from these websites:[6][7][8][9]


* SUMMARY
– WVR COMBAT: Pretty even as both aircrafts have the avionics and weapons to be competitive in WVR combat
– BVR COMBAT: Favors the Gripen C as it can track the Flanker-G 30 km sooner than the Flanker-G can track the Gripen C, and allowing also for maximum BVR missile range it will give the Gripen C a First Look, First Shot advantage of 18 seconds over the Flanker. The Flanker-G though has the advantage of an IRST sensor which is useful in certain tactical situations.

+++ A very impressive result for the Gripen C, by virtue of its extremely low RCS and decent radar. The 9,900% difference in RCS is so large that the Flanker-G’s powerful radar is not able to make up for it.

+++The Flanker-G’s IRST is useful in a limited number of situations as it will enable the Flanker-G to sneak up on its opponents without using its radar (whose emissions can be detected) and fire the first shot if necessary. However it does have limitations, it has a much shorter range than the Flanker-G’s radar at only around 35 km for head on targets,[10] which can be further reduced under certain atmospheric conditions.

‘Stealth Characteristics’
While the good detection range of Gripen C’s PS-05A radar was a big factor in its BVR dominance over the Flanker-G, the even bigger factor is its stealth characteristics. While the Gripen per se was NOT designed as a Stealth aircraft, it was designed around the time when the first operational Stealth aircraft in the F-117 Nighthawk was publicly introduced (in 1988),[11] so the designers incorporated stealth designs into its basic structure without compromising performance, hence the Gripen ended up with such a low RCS of only 0.1m^2.

The Gripen is already a small, compact fighter with low RCS, but computer modelling was used to optimize areas such as the curves of the aircraft and the engine intakes along with their inlet tubes to deflect radar waves. Special Radar Absorbing Materials were also used in key areas enabling the Gripen to lower its RCS even further and giving it excellent advantage against radar.

On the other hand, the F-16 first entered service almost two decades earlier than the Gripen at a time when stealth technology was just at its infancy, hence no stealth aspect was incorporated into it initially. They did make improvements on the aircraft in the latter versions to reduce its RCS from 5 m^2 to 1.2 m^2,[12] but obviously improvements can only go so far without possibly compromising the structural integrity of the aircraft, hence it cannot match the stealth characteristics of the Gripen.

‘Recent Procurements’
In terms of cost, the South African Air Force (SAAF) was able to get the Gripen for USD 77 million per aircraft in 1999,[13] but the more recent purchase by Thailand of the same Gripen C costs them between USD 91-96.5 million.[14] The difference probably came from the fact that the Thailand deal included more weapons and a comprehensive logistical support while the SAAF deal reportedly did not involve any support package, with the assumption that money for logistical support would come in later as the aircraft was operating.

Note that half of SAAF’s Gripens are currently reportedly grounded as the expected money for support did not materialize. Any deal with the PhAF will likely end up closer to the prices of the Thailand deal than the prices of the SAAF deal. This would make it just about even compared to the USD 77-133 million price of the F-16C Block 50/52+.

‘Parting Shot’
While the F-16C Block 50/52+ could only sort of break even with the SU-30MKK in terms of overall air combat performance, the Gripen C clearly trounces the Flanker-G in BVR and WVR avenues of air combat, at least theoretically. However, if China does go out and buy the more formidable SU-35 Flanker-E, then that will shift the advantage back into China’s favor as the Flanker-E is a very capable aircraft that only an F-22 or F-35 will be able to match up with it one on one. This is because the Flanker-E’s Irbis-E radar has a fantastic 454 km detection range for a 5 m^2 RCS target, and also has a much lower RCS itself compared to the SU-30MKK.[15]

I feel a bit sorry for the Gripen, I feel it should’ve been more commercially successful and adopted by more countries than it is now instead of losing out in a couple of international fighter procurement contract competitions. The problem with the Gripen is that it doesn’t have the political clout of the American fighters, or the lower prices of the Russian aircrafts. And it doesn’t have the payload/radar range of the other European fighters like the Typhoon or the Rafale.

But I think it is ideal for a country like ours because first, we don’t really need an aircraft with a lot of range or payload as we will be using it mainly for defensive purposes. Second, its single engine means simpler logistical support, and third as we have seen above it is very capable even against the best of China’s CURRENT fighter aircrafts. And it is also quite popular with the PhAF pilots. IMHO, the PhAF should forget about the F-16C for now, and focus on getting the Gripen C (the “Flanker-G Killer”, LOL) as the MINIMUM main combat aircraft for the Philippines.


A JAS-39C Gripen of the South African Air Force. Photo courtesy of Saab AB thru Flickr
SOURCES:

^[1] Pilots eye Gripen fighter jet, http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/07/03/pilots-eye-gripen-fighter-jet/

^[2] Saab JAS-39 Gripen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

^[3] SU-30MKK, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKK

^[4] Fact file: Saab JAS39 C/D Gripen, http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.p...=article&id=522&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

^[5] Su-30MKK Specifications, http://sinodefence.com/su-30mkk/

^[6] Situation Awareness (Gripen’s PS-05A Radar Detection Range), http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm

^[7] Gripen Radar Cross Section, http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1552

^[8] Which Fighter Plane is the No:1 in the Indian Subcontinent in the BVR(Beyond Visual Range) arena?, http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/bestfighter.html

^[9] Zhuk-MSE, http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/Zhuk-MSE_a001457003.aspx

^[10] OLS-35 IRST option for Su-30 family, http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html

^[11] Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk

^[12] Radar Cross Section (RCS), http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

^[13] SAAF has no Gripen support contract, http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31235&catid=74&Itemid=30

^[14] Air Force eyes six more Gripen jets, http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/369209/royal-thai-air-force-eyes-six-more-gripen-jets

^[15] SU-35, http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/

* GLOSSARY
–> LIMIT LOAD FACTOR = is the maximum amount of stress load on its structure an aircraft is rated for, and is expressed in number of “G”. The “stress load” refers to the ratio of the Lift of an aircraft to its weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_(aeronautics)

–> WING LOADING = is the amount of weight the wing supports during flight, and is expressed in weight per area, or in the metric system, kg/m^2. This is computed by: (Wing Area divided by Weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

–> THRUST TO WEIGHT RATIO = means how much power the aircraft has compared to its weight, and is expressed by a simple number. This is computed by: (The maximum thrust of the aircraft’s engine divided by weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_to_weight_ratio

–> INTERNAL FUEL FRACTION = is the weight of the internal fuel the aircraft compared to its maximum take-off weight, and is expressed by a simple number. Formula used is: (Maximum internal fuel capacity divided by maximum take off weight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction

**********
Revision History:
* November 14, 2013: Originally posted
* March 26, 2014: Updated footnotes to latest standard; Added G-limit as criteria for maneuverability; Added details like Tracking Range, Missile Impact, First Look-First Shot Advantage, etc. to BVR combat criteria.


**********
 
.
(The maximum thrust of the aircraft’s engine divided by weight)

(Maximum internal fuel capacity divided by maximum take off weight)

As long as you provide a glossary, :tup: BTW,
let's be precise and say that both ratios above
vary instantaneously in use all the time. Using
maximums is a simplification for the public.

As all simplifications, it is imprecise. Of two given
aircrafts, one could have a better TW ratio at a
certain speed below maximal which if it happens
to be the one most useful/used for its missions
as per the tactics book makes it better TW-wise
even if the other has a better maximal TW ratio.

"... as the MINIMUM main combat aircraft for the Philippines.

Excellent conclusion!

And if you want more than the minimum . . .
you do what India did only faster, call DA :azn:

Ah!Musings ...

Great day to you, Tay.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom