What to read next

5 Comments

  1. 1

    Mr. Ra

    This situation covers too long and unforeseeable a period. However the win-win situation shall be kept glorified to extract maximum benefits from the running MMRCA deal.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Anonymous

    Replica of IAC 1? Yeah right… STOBAR is crap. It has only one advantage – its cheap. But STOBAR carriers are nothing more than showpieces in real wars.

    Can they offer long range missions? Can they accommodate high payloads?
    Can these aircrafts be used in Anti-ship and tactical bombing roles?

    With a STOBAR platform we shall have an Air Defense Ship and not a true Aircraft Carrier.

    Even the British trashed the STOBAR design and went for CATOBAR. Yeah its expensive and we may require foreign help, but its necessary if we wish to stand up to China's navy. Or else Indian Ocean shall turn into the play ground of PLAN.

    The same Arun Prakash spoke at length about EMALS and its benefits for our future carriers and now he says best option is STOBAR?

    Reply
  3. 3

    Anonymous

    It would be sensible to have the same aircraft type for the Airforce as well as for the Navy (provided Rafale is winning MRCA). But if the IAF selects the F-16 or the Gripen even then the Navy will require the Rafale or the F-35.

    Reply
  4. 4

    Anonymous

    Lets not forget that the Gripen A beat the Finnish Hornets and Norwegian F16s handsdown.

    Gripen is offering a better plane to the Indians..

    And with renewed strength from both China and Pakistan you need a plane for the worst case scenario. The Swedes have perfected their aircraft over many years.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Anonymous

    is he talking about twin engined lca? did i miss something? does any one have more info on it?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.