If you are not taking any of my suggestions, then i feel no obligation to take yours.
This is a fan site for common citizens who are not part of aeronautical industry. We all r strangers, from where obligation & suggestion is coming in?
U hav the right to disagree & have ur inclination, opinion, but do it politely. I gave my opinion, not personaly suggest anything. But u suggested - "
eat humble pie", "
My suggestion to you would be to just pay your taxes on time- and let GoI figure out which programs they want to run. ", "
Wake up and smell the coffee! " Then it is better to dismantle this website itself. When the government & political parties with their plans & decisions can be criticized by public then why not raise concerns for DoD programs for which numerous websites like this & YT channels are already there?
U loose ur cool & start passing personal comments on strangers. From where pie, coffee & income tax came in?
You don't have to tell me to pay my taxes on time, i wonder how old r u. And tax payer's money counts & contributes to DoD assets.
There is separate forum for 4th gen LCA. This forum is for 5th gen AMCA & u r dragging others off-topic by making their small examples as main topic.
If home country AF is not inducting a fighter, what does that tell you?
>it tells us that the home country (USA) has different ecosystem, geography, size, economy, geopolitics, needs, R&D from allies & customer countries. USA is OEM country with multiple products to choose from. Sometimes which product will be pitched to allies & customers also affects domestic choice.
We have a different situation where we have not developed our aeronautical industry at sufficient pace in last 70 years. And then when we finally made a jet, it still got delayed by decades bcoz of dependancy habit, scams, etc.
I also gave example of Rafale as common airframe for AF & Navy.
Fair point. But before you abuse LCA- be ready to back yourself up with well known sources who confirm your view otherwise be prepared for reasonable probing (harrasment?) of your assertions.
>Views in itself are sources. People like u n me have made websites like this & nummerous social media channels. Does this website ask u to be a defence journalist or aeronautical professional or compulsarily quote them?
Is this a GoI website? Sources & people are always found on both sides of agreement & disagreement. As per "reasonable probing" I already said if LCA was inducted by late 1990s, early 2000s then it would have been fine. A fighter jet takes say 20 years from design board to FOC, on top of that 1st we delay by atleast 2 decades further then in the era of 5th gen we are deploying the delayed jet & have to raise MCRA tenders, still not settled. Now we don't have any choice other than to produce few squads of LCA MK1A which intended to replace MiG-21s. 2 new projects of AMCA & TEDBF are enough to fund for now.
Why? Weight is an important but not over arching parameter- you examine the bird in totality to see what capability it brings to the table and deploy it where it's strengths outshine it's weakness.
>What's my fault if DRDO/HAL/NAL/ADA/IAF are categorising planes on weight?
Rather than weight, i actually meant size & power/weight ratio is important. Medium size requires 2 engines, more strengthened airframe like spars, bulkheads, truss, etc. That automatically increase the weight, but with 2 engines it increases P/W ratio, load, agility & other benefits also if carefully designed. LCA MK1/1A's size is puny, engine is weak, hence its payload, agility is less compared to medium or large jet.
The multiple problems with any small jet like LCA is that it still has 1 engine with no redundancy. They still need drop tanks like compulsarily. Later some have to implement CFT. Then the optical sensor pod consumes additional pylon. The structure uses composite but shaping not adapted to reduce RF & IR signature.
So the MWF or MCA or Tejas MK2 will have better F414 engine, P/W ratio, load, agility due to canards but with same traditional legacy problems.
And this is the 1st time we will make 2 jets with canard - TEDBF & Tejas MK2. New FCS laws & design required so both will take time.
Now there will be 4 jets - TEDBF, its AF version ORCA, Tejas AF MK2 & AMCA.
HAL is unable to deliver LCA MK1A at good pace & then some people are talking about 4 projects.
Upgraded 1-engine Grippen & F-16 also face these legacy problems.
Now, TEDBF is larger airframe with 2 engines & apparently will have higher load, fuel, speed, range, P/W ratio & other benefits. The optical pod has become like F-35's EOTS. But in my opinion its airframe shaping need more refinement.
This airframe can be used for AF also utilizing same production line for common part of fuselage & spare parts. AF version of TEDBF is being called ORCA which is in study.
Some people use LCA derived model to denote ORCA & Tejas MK2
It would have been awesome if launched 15-20 years back. But today this airframe is legacy & risky even after fitting with AESA, glass cockpit, HMDS, new weapons, etc. We have to think like the leading countries now, colaborate with them like with Japan, Korea, Israel, as i said earlier.
This TEDBF airframe is still in notional phase, not FOC. We can still give it stealth design treatment of AMCA.
A comparison of TEDBF using same fuselage of AMCA is there to denote Naval AMCA concept. This is my ultimate point to use common airframe, production lines, spare parts. But if F-35 can have identical AF & Navy variants with changes to gear, wing, etc (without canards) then we can modify AMCA's gear, wing, etc without canards also for Navy version.
Now EU nations are moving in colaboration to Tempest & FCAS. Don't know about Tempest but FCAS will be for both AF & Navy.
How can you be an enthusiast when you have no enthusiasm for our local projects? More like non-enthusiast.
>Again personal comment
I have enthusiasm for many local projects like AMCA, TEDBF, Arihant, Arjun, etc. But constructive criticism is also required which can be seen in Talk shows like "Security Scan" on RSTV where popular defence journalists & retired top brass from 3 wings debate. And..... they don't throw personal comments at eachother.
That's exactly what they do at MLU or even block versions. For ANY fighter. Once the platform is ready, then it is the systems on board that give it the edge- talking of sensors, processors, weapons, avionics etc.
Yes but MLU cannot be compared to new gen leap.
USAF gave LM 11 Billion US$ to upgrade F-22 as part of Advanced Raptor Enhancement and Sustainment (ARES), a follow-on to Raptor Enhanced Development & Integration II (REDI II, readiness and software updates).
Now EU has panicked & initiated MLUs for Rafale & EF-2000 but they have dumped 5th gen plans & started colaboration on Tempest & FCAS. They won't create a new jet out of Rafale & EF-2000 bcoz their airframe design is obsolete in front of Tempest & FCAS.
The LCA story is continuously evolving- and you are stuck on the preface of the first edition written 30 years ago.
I don't even wanna talk about LCA, i don't comment in its forum, not even in other websites. I have left LCA fans in peace long back. This is AMCA forum.
I'm aware of LCA evolution, but u have begun to take things personally & assume toooo much about others.
Just like u said that F-18 E/F is seeing its sunset years, same with all 4/4++ gen jets. The only diff. is that USA being R&D leader is already operating 5th gen jets, but not EU hence they decided to dump 5th gen plans & move to Tempest, FCAS, etc. And some of us are still stuck with advocating 4th gen airframe design & recreating its inflated form. So it is clear who is stuck with what.
>If people still wanna drag & inflate LCA airframe then let's dump all projects & concepts & let LCA evolve on the name of evolution. Perhaps they will fit laser pod as part of MLU like (LM has shown for F-16) & then call LCA as 5++ gen jet.
will rule BJP likely
