All fighters will use engine in non afterburner mode in most of the time,so I think ej200 will give better flight characteristics for LCA ,in my opnion mainly in payload vs range scenario.Also they are ready to upgrade The same engine which will give 78 KN and 120 KN thrust in non & afterburner modes respectively( use the miracle called google ). Last but not least its comparatively sanction proof over GE engine.
Again let me repeat my proposition :
1. All fighters use their engine in non afterburner mode most of the time, agreed. my point was is of the New undeveloped engine. While the First Prototype.is scheduled to come out at 2017-18. a change in engine now, could further delay the project as the airframe needs to modified according the new Engine. Also Factor in 78kN of thrust, strengthening of air frame. given the efficiency of HAL is that of a amputated snail. its impractical to go for a change of engine, that is yet to be developed at this point in time.
2. When the actual competition was being held EJ2000 was being hailed as the favorite, had this conversation happened in 2010 i would have favored it, with 5 years down the line it make little sense.
3. The sanction point is as valid as for GE 414 becasue I believe that we are gettiing a full ToT of the engine that should enable us to develop an indigenous supply chain, however if US of A ever slaps a sanction on us trust EU to tail their line. Had this been a fully french company like Snecma. then the sanction proof point was very much valid.
US is by far most un predictable, still in 2015 they have sanction on so many Indian labs and restrictions on buying tools. This is not true with Russia, France or Israel. Us will change it course soon, when ever it needs.
Two points (is from Tanvi Madan's Article)
1. There are two components to this. First, many in India think of the US as unreliable. American behaviour during the 1971 India-Pakistan war has had much to do with shaping this perspective. Yet, few remember the times when the US was the only reliable partner India had--for example, the 1962 war, when Moscow went missing and instead was providing intelligence to China, and when the non-aligned countries fell silent; or the 1965 India-Pakistan war when it was to Washington that Indian policymakers turned to for help when it seemed like China would jump in. The other component to this is American perplexity about India's concerns about unreliability. Yet India has found itself suddenly cut-off from promised military and economic supplies, and policymakers did go from having an implicit American security assurance vis-à-vis China to having an American president urging China to back up Pakistan in its 1971 war with India.
2. This Relationship Is Not Transactional. Sure it is and that's alright. A bilateral relationship can be strategic, but the transactional elements are important--not the least because it involves actors (such as companies) who often have to show returns on their investment more immediately. Realistically, foreign relations are not altruistic; both sides need to derive benefit for a partnership to be sustainable. Both sides need to have and maintain constituencies who think the relationship is worth it. Of course, both sides also need to get beyond constantly asking of the other "what have you done for me lately?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My View it is important to engage USA in Inida's defense industry a time when their domestic spending cuts are ensuring that the defense sector needs new markets and workshops to keep costs down and margins high. Also, it is important to engage USA in a way that the economic interests of both the countries coincide, Alienating, us from the west wont serve our purpose, and this has to be done at all levels.
M-88 whole new engine developed in 15 years & you are doubting in developing a variant with best engine developer & manufacturer Rolce Royce ?.
You do realize that the parameters being developed needs a whole new range and not to miss the structural changes the Mk2's design.
From 2011 there are enough time develop it.
Talk from today's perspective, 2011 is not coming bck.
Tejas MkII still on the paper so when you ready your prototype ?
That every engineering feat you see was once done on paper and this is usually the tedious part. So those papers needs to be thrown away and again begin from scratch ?
Technical Knowledge & ranting are also different thing.
Yes. Only you are endowed with it