What's new

MCA News & Discussions

sancho

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 5, 2009
13,011
27
10,560
Country
India
Location
Germany
Why high requirement? DRDO has been working on each requirement for ages. And it would get experience/knowledge by mrca/pakfa. Saying IAF has not left any space!!
On LCA they demanded a higher thrust engine before it can get in mas production and replace many of the old Mig 21. But if you compare it correctly, the MK1 offers comparable, thrust and weight as JF 17, or even the Gripen C/D that are in the same class.

Wiki specs:
LCA MK1 6 to 6,5t and 83kN with the actual GE404IN
JF 17 6,4t and 84 kN
Gripen C/D 5,7t and 80kN

So if they can, or intend to produce it in higher numbers, why couldn't we dou it?
Also these insisting on indigenous parts only (in MCA again), although they now should understand that the technical capabilities of India, are not so far to offer comparable radar, or engines like western countries. MMR needed Israeli techs, Kaveri now French and they already said that the indigenous AESA development is not good enough and they search for a partner. But honestly, which country will offer a partnership in latest AESA development, if they can't use it for an own fighter?
Why not offer Isreal for example the partnership on MCA, instead serching for a partner only for radar development? Arent they desperatly searching for a platform to integrate their latest radar and avionics? Wouldn't they love to get a 5.gen fighter for way less than the F35 and moreover wouldn't it be the best for India too? A reliable partner with a lot of experiance in radar-, avionics - and weapon development, with enough money to join such a project and the need to replace several old fighters?
That's what I said, we have the chances to get western countries into such arms co-developemts (unlike China for example), but we are not using it!

since we are going to have FGFA, MRCA, SU-30 for air superiority and LCA, MIRAGE(upgraded), MIG-29 can be used very effectively as point defence...WHY NOT DEVELOP MCA AS KICK@$$ STRIKE PLATFORM as replacement of JAGUARs. give it all the stealth, best radars and design it as primarly ground striker...

share your views..sahibs...
I see it different:

230 MKIs, 140 orded LCA (for IAF only), at least 126 MMRCA and now pretty sure about 250 FGFA and there are 50 more rumoured MKIs, 50 optional LCA Mk2s and even 74 optional MMRCAs, what means 746 multi role fighters for the next at least 2 decades!!!
Why do we need another type of multi role fighter for nearly the same time, that not even offer one capability, that those fighters can't offer?

Stealth - FGFA
Multi role - any of them
For air superiority - FGFA, MKI and MMRCA to support
For strike - FGFA and most likely MMRCA
Naval version - FGFA, MMRCA and even LCA is an option
Indigenous - LCA
Low cost - LCA
...

Wouldn't a 5. gen combo of FGFA and a stealth UCAV with that much 4+ fighters as a backup be the way better choice for IAF infuture?
 
Last edited:

saurabh

FULL MEMBER
Oct 21, 2009
854
0
174
On LCA they demanded a higher thrust engine before it can get in mas production and replace many of the old Mig 21. But if you compare it correctly, the MK1 offers comparable, thrust and weight as JF 17, or even the Gripen C/D that are in the same class.

Wiki specs:
LCA MK1 6 to 6,5t and 83kN with the actual GE404IN
JF 17 6,4t and 84 kN
Gripen C/D 5,7t and 80kN

So if they can, or intend to produce it in higher numbers, why couldn't we dou it?
Also these insisting on indigenous parts only (in MCA again), although they now should understand that the technical capabilities of India, are not so far to offer comparable radar, or engines like western countries. MMR needed Israeli techs, Kaveri now French and they already said that the indigenous AESA development is not good enough and they search for a partner. But honestly, which country will offer a partnership in latest AESA development, if they can't use it for an own fighter?
Why not offer Isreal for example the partnership on MCA, instead serching for a partner only for radar development? Arent they desperatly searching for a platform to integrate their latest radar and avionics? Wouldn't they love to get a 5.gen fighter for way less than the F35 and moreover wouldn't it be the best for India too? A reliable partner with a lot of experiance in radar-, avionics - and weapon development, with enough money to join such a project and the need to replace several old fighters?
That's what I said, we have the chances to get western countries into such arms co-developemts (unlike China for example), but we are not using it!

About JF17, AFAIK, they inducted it in the condition they could get. They plan to slowly let it evolve. Besides, PAF hadn't much choice. For IAF, we have choice. So why lower the criteria, if we can get a better aircraft we should get it. It is the Indian companies (DRDO/HAL) that should raise their level to compete.
Agree with you on Israel, dont understand the policy. We already are having some JV's with them I suppose.
We have issued RPF for AJTs. Now why cant DRDO make that. LCA is flying. The kaveri is sufficient to take a light aircraft above mach 1. What is left, what DRDO cant do to make a AJT?
I believe its the right of IAF to put requirements as it is suitable for them, it is DRDO, which is lagging behind.
 

sancho

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 5, 2009
13,011
27
10,560
Country
India
Location
Germany
About JF17, AFAIK, they inducted it in the condition they could get. They plan to slowly let it evolve. Besides, PAF hadn't much choice. For IAF, we have choice. So why lower the criteria, if we can get a better aircraft we should get it. It is the Indian companies (DRDO/HAL) that should raise their level to compete.
But it's not only on JF 17 like this, take the F16s the first once were simple interceptors and with every new block the got new capabilities.
The Gripen A and B, C/D and not the NG and China is also producing J10A and will improve it and later induct the J10B.
Rafale came out in F1 standard, was improved to F2 and now even is offered with F3. This happens while the fighter will be produced and through further improvements. The Tejas instead is not in operational service and is doing only some tests and now, because Mig 21 are in such bad shape that IAF has no choice left they buy 2 squads.
So it seems only in India we want to get the max right from the beginning, btw we can see similar in case of the Arjun too (IA wants upg versions without have the first version really inducted).
 

saurabh

FULL MEMBER
Oct 21, 2009
854
0
174
But it's not only on JF 17 like this, take the F16s the first once were simple interceptors and with every new block the got new capabilities.
The Gripen A and B, C/D and not the NG and China is also producing J10A and will improve it and later induct the J10B.
Rafale came out in F1 standard, was improved to F2 and now even is offered with F3. This happens while the fighter will be produced and through further improvements. The Tejas instead is not in operational service and is doing only some tests and now, because Mig 21 are in such bad shape that IAF has no choice left they buy 2 squads.
So it seems only in India we want to get the max right from the beginning, btw we can see similar in case of the Arjun too (IA wants upg versions without have the first version really inducted).

What I meant to say regarding jf17 is true regarding every AC you listed. Each was inducted/produced as the best plane. Dont know much about operational history of gripen but rest that you listed, were the best that were offered to the respective air force. F16 when arrived was best in its class, rafael was better than the mirages france was having. J10A was the best China could have that time/they needed.
Point is, it is the matter of national security. Every airforce has right to go and they go for the best. (except US!! they closed lines for F22;))
If IAF can get better, why not. Why induct an inferior AC for just the sake of growth of indigenous industry. After all, whether they support or not, DRDO will have to work and grow. It will continue to have funds for R&D. Unlike western companies, it doesnt depends on sells for funds. It is the responsibility of DRDO to become competetive.
 

sancho

ELITE MEMBER
Feb 5, 2009
13,011
27
10,560
Country
India
Location
Germany
If IAF can get better, why not. Why induct an inferior AC for just the sake of growth of indigenous industry. After all, whether they support or not, DRDO will have to work and grow. It will continue to have funds for R&D. Unlike western companies, it doesnt depends on sells for funds. It is the responsibility of DRDO to become competetive.
But what is the difference from then and the MK1 they now going to induct? Nothing, same engine, weapons and techs and technically LCA MK1 is on par with upg Mirage 2000, one of our best fighters at present!
So they are good enough for our security and we could have gone for some MK1 squads earlier and upgrade them with later with better techs and new capabilities, just like it is the case all over the world!
 

jha

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 19, 2009
10,965
-8
9,282
Country
India
Location
India
Wouldn't a 5. gen combo of FGFA and a stealth UCAV with that much 4+ fighters as a backup be the way better choice for IAF infuture?

NISHANT & RUSTOM have really lowered my expectations regarding UAV development...first make a simple thing fly...thats why i said MCA in continuation of LCA.
as much as collaborating with ISRAEL is concerned , thats a very good idea provided they agree for it...they are one of the leaders in the field..
plus if we buy typhoons we might get a chance to develop a UCAV with the europian countries...:cheers:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom