Congress Wants A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff

https://t.co/JM5pJTbusf

I’ve read Mig around 12.5t empty and about 22t max… which gave about 10t maximum load… compared to Rafale’s 15t maximum load… if that’s changed, my bad.

24.5T MTOW on RAC website http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-29k-mig-29kub

I don’t know if it is operational.

Highly dubious about MiG k numbers… About buddy config on rafale, 8000L un wetbags plus buddy storage

Was 2016 the first time Rafale has attended Maple Flag and did the RCAF give it look over as it was there?

I think so. And i guess RCAF did also (no clue, but it would be stupid not to wouldn’t it?)

this is for India third carrier. the third carrier wont be operational for next 15 years. they will be looking for new fighters in next 5 years possible design carrier around that fighter. its competition between T-50 and F-35.

Third arrier maybe common industrial collaboration with next french carrier btw. (citing DGA CEO). Atm i think for obscure reasons the “blocks” (parts that stop the plane from accelerating while it is pushing its engines for take off) of ex Gorshkov may not be compatible with Rafale absorbers (at least i read so on an indian forum).

Why not just get MiG-29 to keep things simple? If not, would Rafale M be a possible candidate?

Candidate? It certainly is. Winner? Another question.

here is an entire wall of data bus text

“The 1553 error rate is extremely low, so you know data will get there correctly, not garbled,” Norton says. “If video data is garbled, you can just correct it on screen or rebroadcast it. But bad data could drop a bomb by mistake or put your plane into a spin.”

Still, designers today find they cannot use 1553 for video or terrain-following radar, which take huge amounts of data. Increasingly, they are looking at 1394b Firewire or Fibre Channel, Norton says. “The best of both worlds would be using a command control bus to fly the plane, and using another to carry data.”

the separation of flight and mission data allows for an upgrade of mission bus without compromising safety i presume,
it was also suggested to replace bus between radar & processor before passing on compressed data

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-15/issue-3/features/technology-focus/avionics-designers-plan-for-another-decade-with-the-1553-databus.html

Isn’t 3910 made for that?