This is not a fight the LCA would win IMO as the IAF top brass are obsessed with maximsing operational capabilties and haven't quite switched over to the mindset of supoorting local industry.
No, simply no my friend!
The IAF already supports the local industry in all sectors by keeping it safe from enemy attacks on Bharat.
Don't forget that those pilots will risk their lives to defend LCA prod line whether flying a Raffy or a Fokker Dr.I.
Anyone from anywhere should want their armed forces to get the best equipment available.
Even USA buys foreign at times.
France itself doesn't have a manned fighter project for post the Rafale, why not the AMCA?
@Taygibay
Very complex question!
To answer it properly, I must be blunt to keep it simple which may ruffle a few Peacock feathers.
The difference of quality / experience & means is a little bit too important.
Going from DRDO drawing up a new tech to almost all DPSU producing it
shows how just making the product is a challenge. The industry tries to follow.
In France, the innovations stem from marrying the industrial research (
private )
with fundamental one, not only fulfilling but sometimes creating new mil goals.
Merging the two
( DGA's excellent job in Fr ) does not even follow the same process.
The research for fighter evolution is currently extant under the nEUROn/FCAS.
Not to mean that a different program would not make sense if it was for a purely
manned version with no compromises, i.e. not tied to diktats of stealth ab initio.
In that case, both money and roles in the project would be sticking points
( for short ).
The industrialization would be a heartbreak to both sides.
It is literally impossible that France would give away industrialization of higher tech.
India would get a lot of work, possibly more than 40% worth on all birds ever made
either screwdrivergiri for HAL et al or turned to the private sector which is not the norm.
Selling core industrial work would be as hard to sell to the French public opinion as
the GoI not getting full measurable, in the pocket advances and/or benefits to its own.
I'm not saying it's impossible though but I'll offer a new Franco_Indian nuke carrier class
as just as important and easier/faster to set-up with similar geo-stategic implications.
MilSpec said:
↑
along with a specialized LCA- Lift variants ( with specialized cockpit simulators for Rafale/MKI/FGFA/AMCA, instead of traditional control, why, because we can)
httx://defence.pk/threads/air-chief-marshal-raha-to-visit-sweden-lca-mk2-aka-gripen-in.433861/page-5#ixzz4Ay2BgmNe
Couldn't agree with this more, why any more effort is being given to the HJT-36 now I just don't understand. The need of the IAF is for a supersonic LIFT and the LCA can fit the bill perfectly and, as you have pointed out, all it takes is the will because the capability is there.
No specialized cockpits, guys! Simulated training missions yes but on a single cockpit.
Just think that your MKI has a throttle stuck on stick but the Rafale has dual joysticks.
And you couldn't simulate mechanical / FBW / FBL controls or would they be different?
It's the weapons systems that need to be trained in realistic flight missions, adapting to
an aircraft is the pilots' job. The LCA could indeed fit that requirement once stabilized.
When did the IAF's needs get so important?
They always were but it was compounded by technological advances that changed the
jetfighters' world in the last 50 years and dereliction in replacing its dwindling numbers.
The IAF's needs also follow geo-pol changes. Where was China's AF in the 1960s?
What did it fail? what metrics, what were the criterions, let IAF make all of those transparent and we can discuss.
No! Making such detailed results available would be wrong. If you are too precise in
revealing your choice criteria, the reasons and means you were looking for in a RFP
or other acquisition, you're giving away tactics at the same time. Just remember that
in international training exercises, sharing of sensors' results by way of data links is a
problem because it gives too much information on said sensors' way of functioning.
630 of them in MMRCA would almost give the whole IAF tactical book away.
Oh, and really, you were prompt, guys to answer hussain! I understand the national itch
but to be honest, I still have doubts on Tejas myself. Let's allow for differences of opinion?
Have a great day, Abingdon mate, Mil Spec and the rest, Tay.