Well the fact that India is entertaining their proposal, in the case of F-18, F-16 and P-8s shows that they are intrested.

FYI the newspapers are on payroll to write whatever :rolleyes:
India is interested in F16 block 70 which isnt even build? :rolleyes:

hornet – yes a part of RFP.
P8 yes.

Well im just speculating what these ‘officials’ have had to say, if you have hard facts to say India has rejected PAC-3s, and was rejected on the Arrow-2 then fair enoughy, show them.

India: Powell to Tell India He Opposes Arrow Sale
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected to tell Indian officials later this week that he opposes Indian efforts to import the Israeli Arrow missile defense system, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, May 16). Powell has said he plans to visit India and Pakistan to discuss regional tensions (see GSN, July 10).

Israel uses Arrow to defend against short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles. Because Israel developed the system jointly with the United States, Israeli officials must obtain U.S. approval to sell it to other countries such as India and Turkey, according to the Post.

The Bush administration has not yet decided whether to approve the sale to India, but high-level officials are considering the proposal, a Pentagon official said. The administration plans to inform Israel of its decision “fairly soon,” a senior State Department official said.

Department officials oppose the proposed sale out of concern that India’s acquisition of the system could increase tensions in South Asia, where Pakistan and India in recent months raised international concern that they might go to war.

“We have concerns about the introduction of more missiles into this area,” the State Department official said. “It could be destabilizing.”

“Were India to proceed with an investment in missile defense, one thing is certain,” said Karl Inderfurth, former assistant secretary of state. “Pakistan will respond in some fashion, either by increasing its offensive capability to counter such a defensive shield or by pursuing its own form of missile defense wherever they could obtain it. That is an iron law of the action-reaction cycle in South Asia.”

State Department officials are also concerned that the sale might harm U.S. efforts to prevent missile proliferation, according to the Post. They worry that it would send the wrong message to Russia, China and other weapons exporters at the same time that the Bush administration has made nonproliferation a priority.

Another potential concern is that selling the Arrow system might violate the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime, of which the United States is a member (see GSN, July 10).

“We have some issues we need to sort through, particularly how the sale relates to the MTCR. That’s an open question,” the Pentagon official said.

Sale Supporters

Several Pentagon officials and others have said they support approval of the sale. Some said they do so out of general support for Israel, which could make a good profit, and some have argued that allowing the sale would be in line with U.S. President George W. Bush’s advocacy of missile defense and efforts to cooperate on missile defense with other countries, the Post reported.

“We certainly understand India’s interest in missile defense,” the Pentagon official said.

Proponents of the sale to India have also said it could improve U.S.-Indian relations and reward India for backing down from a confrontation with Pakistan (see GSN, June 24).
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_7_26_misd.html#2

This is one report i lost the “pantagon” report of REJECTING THE SALES OUTRIGHT OF ARROW 2.

About Pac 3 – that thing costs more than its performance 😀
Afetr Indias own ABM test there was hundreds of reports of defence officials saying – We rejected Pac 3

Citing an announcement by defense officials at a press conference, India’s The Statesman reports that India could establish an air and missile defense shield for a 200 square kilometer area within five or six years, quoting defense scientists said. Such a system could reportedly be duplicated to protect “big cities and strategic facilities like nuclear reactors and space launching sites against incoming missiles.” The interceptor is said to be a surface-to-air missile with a range of 80-85 km, and another interceptor with a range of about 20 km. The Akash SAM is mentioned as a possible interceptor for such a system; “Meanwhile, the Akash will have some anti-missile system capabilities.”

As for the radars for such a system, Mr M. Natarajan, DRDO chief and scientific advisor to the defense minister, said they might include a phased-array radar placed on an executive jet, such as the Brazilian Embrear. India has already purchased from Israel the Phalcon aircraft-mounted radar system
link (http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200502111357.html)

India not impressed with the PAC-3 that it was offered
India is not impressed with the PAC-3 missile unit offered with the two-tier US anti-missile defence system, on the grounds that it is slow for the very low reaction period in the sub-continent, and therefore, the Pentagon will demonstrate more advanced technologies when defence minister Pranab Mukherjee visits the country.

Besides more advanced units than PAC-3, the US is offering mid-air jamming systems

link (http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=3267&ctg=)

Regarding MCTR, doesnt that apply to offensive missile systems and not defensive systems?

Arrow 2 is a MCTR Class 1 missile.

These are ridiculous articles (India is buying hornet/f16/p8/LCS/Aegis/Pac 3 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) what else is left?

WE HAVE DENIED PAC 3 long ago FOR ITS NON SUITABILITY WITH OUR INTEREST —- We asked for Arrow 2 but was denied – somehow US is not too keen to break MCTR at this juncture, because they knows the moment they does they’ll see kh-55 in Iran :dev2:

err didnt the LCA got a DSP upgrade already from 486 to some sharc or whatever?

asyways guys how wing loading effects the turn rate?
also something which peoples normally ommit is SET, specific energy of turn which is defined by the energy required to overcome the drag per unit mass per turn.

Some breadthtaking LCA pictures….

http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/aero/main.php?g2_itemId=7040

I was in the display and i swear when it was flying even the visitors was looking at the sky.

The agility was simply amazing….

A pic of the Turns that it made in a display is also there as a paper presentation.

not really, India has long asked for Arrow 2 which was denied due to MCTR concerns from US as quite some thing in Arrow 2 comes from US (IR seeker comes to mind), so I’m sure this interest was long there and after so much investment in own ABM we would go for it.

highly unlikely.

tinwing you surely could have posted that in a bit “less” font.
noone really started comparing differences with chinas AEW as of now, as we all know this havent yet taken skies yet.

Ough, how dissapointing. Its Stavatti SM-36 Stalma 🙁

However thanks for your effort Stealth Spy 😉

😮 😮 😮 😮 🙁 :p :p :p :p

thaks for your effort though stealth spy, but i feel like i got owned by that magazines hope.

waitin for MCA 😎 though as stated by many.

Yes, amongst many other things.

Robban your not getting things here, seems like you know more then the LCA designers?

Check my post, The altitude at which LCA does the AOA attacks, a canard delta can do the same in that altitude, fighters of its class in its flight envelope.that is why no canards were needed.
The tail of LCA is a bit long too and is “full composite”.

Will the Gripen C/D get the engine upograde or the E/F versions?
If E/F versions then the payload is also increasing….

and about surface of LCA, give me a break LCA uses more composites than Gripen does, not to forget we are exporting composites these days.

tell me do you honestly believe F22 surface is that sleek and doesnt has any rivetts? :diablo: or say Ef’s surface?

Is better surface defines you according to shineness and glosiness? 😉