shiv wrote:er Europeans, Japanese, Brazilians, Australians are not gunning for nuclear weapons. They are not fools as you say.
My statement was a sarcasm. I can't see any other tone in which it could have been read!
shiv wrote:Are Indian pilots going to get fatigued after a 40 minute flight over Pakistan?
Why are we only stuck on Pakistan! Why get into MRCA and stuff if that is what we had to tackle. The problem is if China and Pakistan field planes which can supercruise, would we like to field an inferior plane then?
shiv wrote:Are you going to send supercruising planes over china to attack Chinese cities in 6 hour flights? Why not do the job with missiles? Who is going to refuel that aircraft while it is supercruising over China?
Why have the airforce prepare for China then? No need to have strike fighters. Just have fighters in point defense role. I am really losing you here
shiv wrote:Which 4.5 gen aircraft can supercruise carrying a full bomb load slung on external pylons? Remember even HF 24 could supercruise.
None can. But some like the EF can with meaningful load!
shiv wrote:What is the IR signature of an aircraft whose skin is glowing at 120 deg C flying at mach 1.2 and standing out against a cold cold background sky? Do you think it is only engine exhausts that glow?
No sir, but it definitely one of the biggest. IR missiles do go after them. What else do they seek?
shiv wrote:You don't need supercruise to "expedite reaching a point of action"
No sir, I can fly with full afterburner all throughout, i.e. if the engine can take it non-stop! But when I reach there, it will be time for me turn around and leave for home.
shiv wrote:If a plane has to be well designed and supercruise is a consequence of good design rather than a design goal, why is supercruise being made out to be the goal to reach. Surely good design is the goal, not supercruise.
You missed the point altogether. Which ever designer's interview one reads, they never say that we built the plane to supercruise. They always say that the plane "should be able to" supercruise. That is an effect of alround good designing elsewhere and technological maturity of critical flight parts!
shiv wrote:And do you think India can develop an in house supercruising aircraft with at least 70% India tech and have in it service in 20 years? I don't believe that.
I don't know what is the "right" way forward for us". I have left them on the people who are in the right places. But surely I can see that once India has the right engine developed, there is no reason why our planes wouldn't supercruise. And what the hell, isnt AMCA supposed to supercruise?
Some very wise gent remarked here. Just put your points down, don't try to change people's opinion because it is futile. I have the sincerest respect for that poster. I wrote down what I know and thought was correct. I am not trying to spread bronchitis! Waise, it is not very gentle to remark about another posters nationalistic pride by saying that he has bronchitis for love of weapons from the US, without any basis.