I know about both the gun and the material. The complexity difference between a ship and a tank is that the designers have much higher levels of sophistication due to the small size of the tank. The smaller the design, the higher the complexity in designing such a system, the very reason why Arjun got bigger and heavier over time.
In another way the naval guns are not restricted to firing a 10kg round just for 5 Km. The gun size and the size of Arjun has no relationship.Why Arjun is big is , due to the safe ammo storage 4 man crew GSQR of Amry. So it is not the Ship guns are such a piece of cake. All armaments use the cutting edge tech at all levels. there are no exceptions.
The reason why this gun is imported. Same with the radars and other weapons systems like the AD units, Missile squadrons. Luckily we managed to make indigenous EW components, maybe not the best, but adequate for what the IN requires and that word is important, adequate.
Not by luck but by concentrated r& D, I haven't known that the torpedoes and other stuff being worked on by DRDO arrives just due to luck.
I am not saying designing a ship is a piece of cake. What I am trying to say is that designing a ship and comparing it to a tank or aircraft isn't fair. The latter are much more difficult to achieve. There are only a handful of modern tank and aircraft designs around the world. Even a layman can commit to memory the number of modern designs available for either. In comparison every major country has its own individual modern ship design that is unique to itself and even experts need to look back at their notes to differentiate between the numbers available.
If we tailor our weapon load and range requirements according to the engine thrust level we can produce a fighter that matches the su-30 here itself.
By no analysis we can say we can not produce anything world class here, Now arjun ranks among one of the best tanks in the world and it;s future FMBT version will also be state of the art among future tanks.
Ships have complex electronics, propulsion and weapons systems, I definitely agree. Due to the sophistication required and the inability of the Indian industry to deliver, the IN has no choice but to import most of these systems. Hence why IN isn't really a champion of indigenization, they merely make do with what can be done while importing for what cannot.
IN while importing the systems that are not here right now is also making an effort to replace them with suitable local stuff later. But IA and IAF re effectively killing off local R&D effort by continuously changing specs mid way.
Again my point was not in the finer technical aspects of a ship or aircraft design. There is not a single ship in the IN which can really go toe to toe with any USN ship. The Delhi class is completely outclassed by the Ticonderoga. The Shivalik class is outclassed by AB. We have nothing in comparison to the subs and carriers, even USN assault ships and support ships.
Once again it is the tactics that we use. F-22 is the best as per all opinions. But still many have different opinions about the effectiveness of F-22 if suitable EW measures are deployed
However IAF has some platforms which are more sophisticated and more expensive than what USAF operates, namely Phalcon and MKI. And higher requirements than even VVS for FGFA.
Our MKI is there because of the sub standard avionic on board the original flanker versions. Nothing ,more
In conclusion, my points are quite simple and are listed below.
- The IAF and IA cannot be expected to have their own design bureaus like the Navy does. It is practically impossible. As a matter of fact the future of such an establishment is weak in certain ways since there will be no scope for competition. In around 20 or 30 years we may end up seeing HAL and ADA designs competing with each other for IAF requirements. What's disappointing is the IAF request for placing their own men in ADA and HAL at an administration level was turned down. Like the position in the LCA program that has been vacant since 20 years, according to the TKS blog
Not having a few P.HD holders in their PSQR team is a shame for a force that calls itself the air space force. IAF request for placing it's men who have no technical education in the country's state of the art R&D team is illogical.
No design team wants an outside member from an organization which neither funds the program or supports it whole heartedly leading to stalling the program five years due to lack of funding.
It was the IAF's trenchant opposition to the techs tried on board the tejas , and it's opposition to funding that led to the serial delays of LCA from the begining. If at all IAF guys were there in the administrative team the program could have been wound up long ago with motivated leaks and would have led to more resignation from the members of technical team who are not coolies to slog on a project that will not see the light at the end of the tunnel.
.
- IAF requirements are far beyond the horizon of what the Indian industry can deliver, even if IAF sits on top of their heads and empties their entire budget only on R&D. There is a limit to what services support and unlimited funding can do. Look at the Chinese, still stuck with technologies from the 80s, and still reduced to importing. They even have more money and high tech skills than we do. So comparing IAF's needs and requirements to IN's needs and requirements are like comparing apples and oranges, therefore even the expectations from the defence industry would be different for both while taking into account some of the Navy's requirements are easier to develop.
