go and read about it, nothing to do with the aircraft value

really. aircraft value relative to capability is all that matters. if some thing is deemed overpriced it means it has less capability for the price.thats why this so long negotiation.

it did. And meteor range was obviously deemed satisfactory

Meteor was sent to Indian trials before in 2010.?

to this day, SPECTRA have proven that it is a first class EM warfare suite… your new systems have proven… er… what? aside from that, IAF has been working with mig until recently… if they removed it without testing as you claim, that tells a lot about what it’s worth (PoS, basically)… you should try to think about what you write, could be fun, you know?

spectra proven against what?. Its a rotten system that only Egypt has bought it until now after 20 years of sale effort. and that is more desperate for show as they need planes for fligh past soon.

and yet, it never destroyed anything with it. The idea of weapons is to hit stuff, not just be walked around…

I said its the same absolete version in air lunched version. there is no improvent to range.

after several years of tests, on technical and performance grounds, the Mig lost… so your “super modern fighter of the future” lost against what YOU call obsolete fighters (both of which have canards btw)

several years of tests?. you are making this things up.. MIG went there only for brief tests in 2010 and the only one to use AESA radar with weopon. So called EF was never even deployed with AESA. I am not sure about Rafale condition in 2010 and that time India does not even have actual life cycle data from MIG-29K. This whole thing is farce from start. definite MIG-35 only coming in 2020. still in time when India actually can induct fighters.

obviously YOU know better than indian professionals who thoroughly tested all the aircraft proposed. If you can’t grasp how ridiculous your stance is, nobody here can help you

obviously they don’t know anything that’s why they are wasting years on negotiations.

as for the exocet… it has a record against a much more produced and exported missile that has hit nothing for real… ever.. is that what you’re saying? well I’ll agree with you and choose the exocet then 😀

those were exocet exported in late 70s and 80s. it simply does not have same level of improvement as Kh-35/Kh-31 in past 15 years.

er, we’re talking about a fighter to enter service by 2025. by that time India will be producing its Rafales pretty much completely on its own

who will want to put obsolete figher on $10b carrier in 2025. that’s how much inflation will raise the price of carrier.

the “unupgradable nose” of the Rafale was upgraded not long ago and new upgrades are in the works.

nothing is upgraded.

the “weak engines” allow it to carry 1,5 times its empty weight in fuel and ordnance, something the Mig with its “very weak” engines is far from being able to do

MIG engines are far superior. It can implement TVC. it gives much higher speed, altitude and range on internal fuel to much larger airframe. there is clear upgrade path to engines. and production volume will always be higher than left over orders of Rafale.
MIG wings foldup so takes less or similar space as Rafale.

as for anti-ship missiles, the exocet has proven its capability in real combat and is obviously sufficient for the French who, in case you missed it, are second only to the US when it comes to going around the world and sticking their (armed) nose in somebody’ else’s business

that is 30 to 40 year old record. I highly doubt exocet has range and speed of newest Kh-31/35. French only fight in Africa or coalation with Arabs. I highly doubt it can last more than a day in European or Asian war.

I’m talking about empty weight of both. So for both you have to add fuel and ordnance to fly operationally

The srafale weighs about 10t and tge Mig about 12t empty

it only say its in 10ton class. nothing about navalized fighter weight. MIG-29K is less than half the price of naval Rafale.

Basically correct, but also completely irrelevant. The C-17 and Il-96 (which I was comparing it to) both use similar or identical mid-1980s technology engines and still fly rings round the Il-476. Which they wouldn’t if the aerodynamics were up to scratch.

You have no under standing of aircraft economics. Boeing isn’t interested in 10 to 12 planes production rate or upgrading fundamentally C-17. Unit cost may go up to $1b a plane. that’s why they closing the production and that’s after amortizing costs over 250 planes. IL-476 is designed from ground up so that it can survive even with 10 to 12 planes production per year and still get upgraded. IL-96 is irrelevant as it hasn’t been modernized and nor production costs at enhance production rate known.

I merely mentioned the 737 to demonstrate the considerable scale and depth of the changes required to keep a 40 year old airframe competitive and relevant today, and how they go far beyond what the Il-476 (or, for that matter, our original subject the C-130J) incorporates. Hanging even newer engines on the Il-476 is a specious argument because you could equally easily put comparable power plants on the Il-96 or C-17, thus restoring their performance lead. In the end, the Il-476 will never match them in a fair comparison unless it gets a new (meaning aerodynamically and not just structurally revised) wing.

the point is PD-14M engine will go into MTA and certainly IL-476 can be upgraded with that engine. MTA and IL-476 has same x-sectional area.enhenced light weight avionics will further increase the range of IL-476.
IL-96 industrial supply chain is never designed for 10 to 12 planes per year nor its cost known at that production rate. it has no influence on IL-476. I am not even going into complex studies like putting several tones AESA antenna over the top of it. ***removed by moderator***

The answer is that it was quite comprehensively beefed up structurally and got new engines, but this question (no doubt deliberately) misses the point – which was *aerodynamics*. As the Il-96 and C-17 prove, what you more properly ought ask is why can’t the Il-476 carry 52 tons a lot further than 5000km, given its fuel capacity and engines? To which the answer is, because its wing remains unchanged aerodynamically from its late 1960 origins. You act as though that performance was impressive, when actually it is anything but bearing in mind it has decent PS-90A engines and the same fuel capacity as early model C-17s.

PS-90A engine is at best mid 80s tech. Certainly not on level of engines that 737 newest version is getting. IF IL-476 gets newest engine. Its efficiency will improve by 30 to 40%. I am not even going into light weight avionics or composites. Aerodynamics are already the best. no need to improve it.

Er… LOL. Just, LOL. Thanks for reminding me why I ordinarily ignore your posts.

most of your posts does not make sense anyway so I dont respond to them.

Thing is, the 737 was souped up far more comprehensively and much more regularly than either the C-130 or the Il-76. While the latter two have remained virtually unchanged aerodynamically the over the course of their lives and received no more than a single major engine upgrade, the 737 will have gone through 3 clean-sheet wing designs and 3 major engine updates by the time the MAX comes online, with countless evolutionary improvements in between.

The only way the C-130 could maintain its leading market position for so long without similarly comprehensive revisions is that there was no serious competition – the KC-390 will change that.

how on earth IL-476 can carry 52 tons to 5000km with higher crusing speed with 3 times higher lifecyle if it is not extensively redesigned from ground up.
any thing left after disaster predictions about An-70. Infact I am willing to claim if IL-476 is produced at same production rate as 737. Its price will be far cheaper than 737. It is this level of industrial automation behind it.