sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
True but .. you didnt understand even Shakti engine struggled during sanction... and we have to pay the royalty for every engine back to France.. because France didnt part the technology of some critical components...
I do and I said before that sanctions had their parts in the delays too, but wasn't the major problem. We struggeled with Kaveri and then had to find a plan B in the short term, instead of planing with a safe and proven engine from the start, to counter any problems that could ocur during Kaveri developments.
And in regard of money, we didn't get the GE engines for free right? And by the fact that by that time we were desperate, we didn't have much space to bargain as well. So that is no point for me, I even say it's only money!
I would rather have spend some more money back then and see Tejas flying in sqads now, instead of paying afterwards and just hoping to see Tejas to be ready anytime soon!
Are you sure they are ready to part the technology?? even today SNECMA is crying to share the IP of its core to GTRE for eco core.. and no way Russia gives the technology... Russia never sold current technology to any one.. we cant dream of doing JV Turbo fan in 1990 as it is a very hot technology...
Because we ask for the techs that they even plan for a future upgrades only, when we look at all the JV with ToT we have with France, it should be obvious that they are a prefered partner, because of ToT isn't it?
Also as I said, we didn't had to go for a co-development, it just was one option. A simple licence production of stop gap engine would have been enough as well, to get Tejas ready for IOC and licence production till Kaveri is ready. Basically the same that we do now with GE 404, that might be replaced by Kaveri during MLU, but the advantage would have been several years less delays!
For example take Brahmos.. Russia contributes the propulsion and India guidance and software.. you think Russia gave the Propulsion technology to India.. no it didnt.. even FGFA they are not going to part some complex technologies like AESA and avionics.. they will help India in Stealth characteristics of the body.. and DRDO will develop our own version with CFC..even i doubt they gave some valid input for Arihant...
And that is surprising? No country in the world gives out their top techs, or secrets for free, that's why I also say we need indigenous developments. But we will never catch up to western countries, Russia, or China, when we try to do it alone and risk these kinds of delays.
Brahmos for example, if we had tried to develop such a missile alone, how many years would have taken us and wouldn't the other countries increase the gap in the meantime? MKI was the start, where we could at least customize to our requirements and include indigenous parts. FGFA will be even a step ahead, because we are included in the redesign of our version and can give way more input in terms of materials, or cockpit design for example. We learn about NG techs, can bring indigenous inputs in it and (hopefully) will have it in service at a very early stage. Again, if we didn't go for FGFA, when would be able to field a 5th gen fighter alone and wouldn't China have a clear advantage with J20 then?
Btw, Arihant imo would never be possible without Russian and French ToT through Scorpene deal, but it's such a top secret project, that we will never hear more about the deals behind it.
Not needed... you are just taking of cockpit and human substem which are not needed... but it needs sufficient technology to interact and think on its own incase a missile approaches
I agree that you need more advanced systems, or software as we said earlier, but I don't think that this example is correct. Even today latest EWS systems are detecting, localising and identifying threats alone, they even offer the pilot possible solutions to counter it. Chaf and flares will be even used automatically and all these infos will be displayed at the virtual cockpit of the drone pilot as well.
UCAV super cruise and TVC is a bless advantage.. if it is there.. Super cruise enables to go longer distance with less fuel is absolute need...
Not really, because UCAV engine won't have an afterburner anyway, just like TVC is not needed, because maneuverability is not a key requirement like at fighters. Just look at dedicated strike aircrafts with stealth design like F117, or B2, both not meant for fighting, but for very low RCS and delivery of strike weapons. Regarding payloads, not the thrust alone is important, keep in mind that the weight will less as well (comparable to LCA).
so AMCA is very much a needed fighter.. even US NTGA has called for manned option in case of emergency where Boeing had given the option...
That we have FGFA for and as long as AMCA will not be more advanced, lets say a 6th gen fighter, a stealth UCAV for strikes alongside FGFA is more reasonable.
I don't like to compare with other countries, because it mainly depends on their own requirements, when and what they developm. But by the fact you keep mentioning the US, they will induct F35 soon, will add X47 later and the developments of Boeing for a 6th gen replacement of F18SH by 2025 has already started and they have 2 totally different 5th gen fighters, not the same like FGFA and AMCA would be.
If we had the same situation that they have AMCA might make sense, but we don't! We induct 3 different 4.5 gen fighters in the next 4 years, will add a 5th gen fighter and a 5th gen UCAV, there is simply no need to add a fighter that offers operational advantage for our forces.
but all those lost in peace or war will not be replaced but will be opted by AMCA.. it is better to go for a stealth developed by India than to buy MMRCA...
So for such a specific reasons you want to add a new type and pay all the development costs? Why not simply add another FGFA?
it will be a bad decision to replace whole of Manned with UCAV...
I never said that, but to replace dedicated ground attack fighters with UCAVs which are clearly better in these roles does makes sense.
Even in this decade you will see that IAF will divert CAS and possibly SEAD attacks to hunter killer drones comparable to Predators, or Reapers accompanied by some manned fighters with dedicated EW capabilities. Even today in Afghanistan and Libya, drone attacks in these roles are more useful than fighter attacks, because they have more range and endurance than manned fighters. That's why the trend is also to lighter strike weapons like Brimstone, JAGM, AASM 125/250, Paveway IV, or SDB, while we striked with 500Kg LGBs in Kargil war.