What you think the current Rafale fly’s around with a lot of empty spaces available within its airframe???

BTW when they talk future growth. Volume is only half the story. :rolleyes: Also, as long as we are talking “Physical Space”. Then I guess India would be better off with the Super Hornet. As it is the largest aircraft in the competition. He11, maybe Indian should purchase more MKI’s! Which, is not to say physical space doesn’t have its place for future growth. Yet, in the case of the Rafale vs the F-16 its not that great. The Gripen vs the Rafale maybe…….

Roll your eyes at someone who might be effected; that person isn’t me.

If you look at how the Falcon has “matured”, you’ll see that it’s outgrown it’s original airframe and now looks someone grafted a bunch of legos to its spine and added other lumps and bumps that weren’t there on the original.

The airframe has been pushed about as far as it’s going to be able to be pushed without adding an addition to the thing. Maybe some dormers along the spine…

Rafale, and Superhornet are mature without having pushed their airframe to the limits. Gripen NG…that hasn’t flown. And Typhoon, it has potential but the question is, “Is it mature enough and will it have the electronics the IAF wants?”

The F-16 is a great plane, but I think LockMart is pushing the airframe just a bit and other airframes offer more potential.

And in the end, this is all *opinion” and your opinion is no better than mine as neither one of us know the technical details of any of the aircraft.

Not to directly question its durability, but I can’t think of any M1A1/2 incidents which demonstrate extraordinary protection levels on the same degree of several notable ones involving a Challenger II. Challenger II was the only coalition tank to have no units put out of action by enemy fire in OIF and according to the MoD survived a MILAN, 8 RPGs and small arms fire for hours when stuck in one engagement and seventy RPG hits in a separate protracted battle in Basra. The only Challenger II ever completely destroyed had a friendly sabot round go through an open top hatch.

I strongly suggest you read the book, “Thunder Run” by David Zucchino about the 3ID’s Spartan Brigade’s armored thrust into Baghdad and the capture of Saddam’s palace. The punishment that the M-1s took during that operation was phenomenal and only a handful of vehicles were lost. I’m not sure how much combat the UK’s Challenger IIs were in, but I’d be willing to bet that it was nothing as intense or as heavy as Spartan Brigade’s thunder run into the city.

Kurt

australia has a history of purchasing the best and improving it… steyr…

I’ve heard nothing but bad things about the Steyr the ADF is using. It could be a biased US press, but I heard that corners were cut in production (no chrome in the bore or chamber) and that the weapon suffered.

If true, I wouldn’t hold it up as being something you “improved”.

Kurt

I agree with your reservations. Why then has Russia been asked to submit an offer in the MMRCA selection process? Is it because those responsible for organising the MMRCA selection are very foolish?

Not at all. It’s simple, really, you don’t snub a source of a lot of your hardware if you can help it. Inviting the Russians to submit a bid was, IMO, simple window dressing so as not to present the appearance of saying, “We don’t want you.”

If the MiG proposal wins, I’ll be very surprised.

I think that India should definitely not select a Russian aircraft for MMRCA. IMO India should not have a fighter force composed almost entirely of Russian aircraft in the future.

If India wants a level of performance higher than that offered by Gripen NG I think India should go for Rafale or Typhoon. I am sure that local assembly would considerably reduce the cost of both aircraft. IIRC I read that the cost of locally assembled Hawks was 25% lower than the cost of the Hawks assembled by BaE Systems.

Why would they be so foolish to do something like put all their eggs in the Russian basket? Every time they need more, spares, or weapons, the Russians will jack up the price. Diversifying the fleet will give the IAF stability.

Factually, Japanese wants the EurofighterTyphoon as total replacement of Mitsubishi F-2.
If the weapon load as what you said, the Typhoon is suited as Fighter-bomber also.

I thought the range of Typhoon was a bit anemic when carrying a heavy load?