MMRCA: Self Goal by IAF?

[Sahasranama]

Ya, Cost is a real concern for IAF ........ they lay awake at night wondering how to pay the bills.

 

[GORKHALI]

No, I showed the standard CAS configs, which doesn't include LGBs on the centerline for both. For more range both would however carry a 3rd fuel tank there, but that doesn't change the weaponload.



That's not correct, the wingtanks are larger and can carry 1200l, while the centerline station has size limitations, which is why only a 800l tank can be carried there. The single fuel tank is only useful for light A2A roles, or to add more fuel besides the 2 tanks at the wings.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Tejas_weapon_display_Aero_India_2011.JPG

Its seems it can take 1200 Litres centre line tank maybe not yet cleared .

 

[sancho]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Tejas_weapon_display_Aero_India_2011.JPG

Its seems it can take 1200 Litres centre line tank maybe not yet cleared .

Don't let yourself confuse by the paintjob of the tanks, check the size difference:

P.S. Can you see the pics btw? Having problems posting them, I can see them in the preview but not in the post itself.

 

[Raul_AD]

You do realize that it's not a real pic right?

P.S. Current Gripen C with 500lb LGBs:
For comparison:
Both with LDP, 2 x fuel tanks, 2 x 500lb LGBs and 2 x WVR missiles!
Also Gripen NG with Meteor:

The increased internal fuel reduces the need of 2 fuel tanks and therefor frees hardpoints, but no multi racks needed. If they come somewhere in future is a different question.

Here you go: Gripen for Canada: Why the Saab Gripen NG is right for Canada

Rendering of a Gripen carrying two massive belly tanks, four anti-ship missiles, infrared tracking pod, two Meteor medium range missiles and two IRIS-T short range missiles.

Check how many weapons are mentioned in multiple racks. In 2, 3, and center 4,5.

Please check the Blog if it is not capable of Multiple Racks why people are time and again Boasting it????

Where are these question marks? Did you ever have seen any MoD or IAF official stating that the MMRCA is too expensive? Did you have have seen an official confirmationa about the speculated cost increase, let alone the budget? Did you at least have heared the new PM stated his concern over MMRCA and his preference for LCA?
If not, then we have only the media an some forumers hyping the cost issue, ignoring the capability issue, just as well as the industrial advantages MMRCA is meant to give, which can't be given by ordering LCAs.

This is the most controversial and debated point this is why Saint Antony had not signed the deal.

How many Billion $ deals been cleared by New Govt. but why withholded Rafale deal????

What the people backing Tejas will get in the deal????

Same not true about people like you????

This is my last post because you are always bending the debate on wrong ground.

 

[sancho]

Please check the Blog if it is not capable of Multiple Racks why people are time and again Boasting it????

Because it's advertisement, they try to show their product in the best possible config, not necessary in a realistic one. At airshows for example when they present weapons for a fighter, it only means that these weapons could be integrated if there is a customer that demands it, but not that they are available today. Similarly, those multi racks can be developed, but until Sweden or another customer demands that it's only PR. And once again, it doesn't matter what other fighter can or can not do, but what LCA is meant to do and how it's upgrade turns out. That however is mostly speculation today, all we do know is, that it don't get more hardpoints as the Gripen E and therefor will remain with a major limitation.

This is the most controversial and debated point

Actually his statement was that there was not enough money left in the budget of the last financial year, not that MMRCA is too expensive. Moreover he clearly stated that the deal will be fixed after the election, which shows that it was just pushed after the elections, just as most of the cleared procurements back then (Apache, Chinook, A330 MRTTs, M777...).

This is my last post because you are always bending the debate on wrong ground.

Hehe, don't shoot the messenger. I gave you straight arguments and I'm happy if you try to argue for the LCA based on facts too. For the aims IAF has with LCA, it will be a great addition, but we shouldn't make more out of it than it is.

 

[GORKHALI]

Don't let yourself confuse by the paintjob of the tanks, check the size difference:
View attachment 143994
View attachment 143995

View attachment 143996
View attachment 143997

P.S. Can you see the pics btw? Having problems posting them, I can see them in the preview but not in the post itself.

Got it mate . http://tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf
Here it clearly mentioned:
Operational Air Support Missions with 1200/800 Ltr Drop tank & 1000 LB bombs in CCRP/CCIP modes completed.

 

[sancho]

Got it mate . http://tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf
Here it clearly mentioned:
Operational Air Support Missions with 1200/800 Ltr Drop tank & 1000 LB bombs in CCRP/CCIP modes completed.

That both fuel tanks were used in that trials, not that they both were used at the centerline station, nor that the centerline station can carry them. The pics I have posted even shows the 800l and 1200l fuel tanks at the wings, just as the use of an 800l tank at the centerline and if you look at that pic, you'll see that even that smaller tank is positioned as much forward as possible, to give enough ground clearance during take offs and landings. The 1200l tank however is clearly longer and wider (although only I don't know if the width is a problem too)