Do you know that an empty aircraft doesn’t fly ?

and that is your brilliant reposte to the fact that the Rafale’s T/W will not improve with added fuel and weapons ? it’ll only at best hover around the unity mark.

True. But then, what about the Typhoon T1 ?

It’ll still stay ahead of the Rafale B. I remember an interview with a German Typhoon pilot where he said that the large single piece canopy of the 2-seater Typhoon increased drag- so I’d myself hope that the difference between the 2-seater Typhoon and the Rafale B will be less.

Still, you don’t know whether the military or maximum thrust datas are maximum settings on a test bench, or installed thrust values, or obsolete datas. You still don’t know how thrust changes with speed or altitude and because both engines are not similar, you can’t tell whether these changes impact both engines in the same way (that’s doubtful).

The data that I’m quoting are from the manufacturer’s websites. Hardly likely to be on the lower-end of the spectrum by any logic.

now instead of you just speculating that somehow the M-88-2 outperforms the E-200 at different speeds and altitudes, come up with PROOF or just keep quiet and join me in hoping that the M-88-3 is brought into service.

Whatever. Rafale wing loading is slightly lower than the Typhoon’s one, or at least quite similar (care to compare with loaded or combat weights ?). Rafale TWR is indeed a bit lower (less than 10%), but that doesn’t entitle you to draw any conclusion because one aircraft is heavier than the other. That means it needs to generate more lift to stay airborne, and more lift means more lift-induced drag. As a result, the heavier aircraft requires more thrust to reach the same performances.

what BS. worldwide, the T/W ratio and wing loading are considered to be good indicators of performance- which is precisely why the Typhoon with higher weight, still is ahead of the Rafale in both parameters. Again, the BS that you’re spouting of the Rafale’s wing loading being slightly lower than the Typhoon is in the face of me having provided the DATA to the contrary ! the fact is that the Typhoons wing loading is LOWER at 306-311 kg/ft2 as compared to the 326 kg/ft2 of the Rafale.

The more you can say is the comparison leads to a draw. Neither jets is better than the other as far as TWR and wing loading are concerned because the differences are not significant enough.

huh..I’ve given you the data after you ask for proof and you still come up with such statements- if you just want to be an ostrich, be my guest. I’m only concerned with the Rafale because the IAF may evaluate it and I want the Rafale to be selected for the MRCA.

no, actually the Rafale does fall behind the Typhoon in thrust/weight loading where the Typhoon stands at about 1.2 and the Rafale at just about 1.03 or so..and considering that the Typhoon has a lower wing loading (of 63 lb/ft2 as compared to the 69 lb/ft2 of the Rafale), in combination with the higher T/W ratio, making it more agile in air combat- definitely more potent.

but the M-88-3 would bridge that gap considerably, making the Rafale on par with the Typhoon in air combat maneuvering..my only concern is that there is no roadmap for implementing this higher thrust engine.

as for uprated engines coming with heavier engines generally, lets take the case of the Jaguar where it is not so- the Adour has always been an underpowered engine for the Jag and the IAF is looking at a uprated Adour Mk 801- it has nothing to do with a heavier Jag variant.

the Tejas LCA is getting an uprated GE F-404IN20 that has 20,000lbs thrust as compared to the GE F-404F2J3 rated at 18,000 lbs that was initially used and that has nothing to do with a heavier design- rather the Tejas got lighter with more use of composites between different prototypes.

well considering the investment that will be made on developing a new LCH from ALH technologies, its the wise thing to do to go for a good number of gunships..and if its cheap enough maybe HAL can offer it to others as well as they are doing the ALH and hope to do with the Sitara IJT.

as for Mirage-2000s, there are no French AdlA Mirages on sale for now..there were those expensive 10 Qatari M2k jets..AdlA Mirages will be on the market for sale starting around 2011 or so.

Yea good for you..if IAF starts replacing its junk on time…4.5 Gen planes and Tejas still carry a huge variability in timings of availibility.

they’ll be available in numbers matching whatever numbers the J-10 will ever be available to the PAF..what certainty exists on the timings of availability of that jet ? and the FGFA project with the Russians should have already gotten into advanced stages of development by the time that happens, so the PAF will need to deal with a 5th generation Russo-Indian jet with what, the J-10 as its top-end fighter ?

great post, I think that puts things into better perspective. Further, while the PAF is not looking to the JF-17 to counter the Yum-Kay-Eye, it does not mean that the former is going to get blown away by the latter. The JF-17s would, in my opinion play a crucial role in handling the MiG-29s/35s, Mirage-2000s and the IAF junkyard. This I believe the JF-17 is well suited for, particularly over its own territory. The 50 J-10s and the 75 or so F-16s will be earmarked for the Y-K-I.

by the time PAF replaces its junkyard of Mirages, Fantans and J-7s and those 50 J-10s fly with the PAF, the IAF would have a new AESA equipped 4.5 generation fighter as well. contend with that..:rolleyes:

as for those F-16s, IAF’s upgraded Mirages and Fulcrums will take care of them, MKI’s are an overkill..

as for the JF-17, the Tejas will be more than adequate for it.

the problem with that blue livery by Abraham is that the colours are totally new for AI and the peacock feather looks a little similar to the Thai Airlines symbol..not distinctive enough..the saffron Chakra on the Indian A320s were beautiful- and its a very Indian symbol.