Please state those so that we can discuss further.
Five years ago a twin engine version of Tejas might have been an option, and yes a good one but now at this point it is no longer the perfect option, specially considering need for a VLO version sometime after 2025. ADA's design team has already completed preliminary design after testing various design models in labs that includes RCS evaluation as well.
What we today need is an unequal force behind project. Say we need engines for AMCA then buy a readily available engine for first tranche. And at the same time negotiate with a foreign house for completing the development of Kaveri K-10 which may or may not be the same company. Don't mix the requirements of one for another and vice versa. Completion of K-10 and development of all required infrastructure for developing any engine (not just turbofan ) in one requirement and having a suitable engine for AMCA is another. Why mix and fix burden on one another and stall both. Atleast this what which seems to be happening.
National security is not a matter of option but a need, dire need. IAF top brass never had any vision, at most I would look at them as sheep, the reason is that they lack vision. A good general (and i am using literal term) prepares for the NEXT WAR, and not war that was fought 10 years ago. I see IAF top brass (and Indian leadership) lacking vision and imagination. For example, during Kargil war, IAF was caught with its pants down when it did not have plans, planes or weapons to dislodge the enemy at Kargil. They depended on Jaguars.. which could not be effective in Kargil. We had MiG-29 which IAF chief did not have the vision or foresight to develop into MRCA (till then IAF had purchased and used MiG-29 only as air superiority plane and the plan was that if Pakistani MRCA F-16 ever entered India MiG-29 would attack it. And yes, our attack would be conducted by Jaguar only.) Thus as you see IAF was single dimensional, there are no plan B or C.. and that is when Jaguar did not become effective, they panicked and realised they did not have any plane to strike, Thats when they thought to bring in the Mirage 2000 from Gwalior which were earmarked for nuclear strike duties. Now Mirage 2000 that we had did not have any modern A2A missiles, Actually it just had a gun, and very very very expensive A2G missiles which IAF did not want to waste in kargil. Further it did not have a targeting pod. Thus with haste, HAL and Israeli technicians managed to ramp up some kits and put LITENING pods on Mirage 2000 and some smart bombs. And that is how Mirage 2000 was able to be effective. But what actually was the preparation of IAF for this type of conflict? There was none. They had not forecasted such a scenario. If you see, Kargil was an eye opener, and stupid mistake by Pakistan, had it over blown, India would have had a bad beating.
Then IAF starts to ramp up its ability. and what does it do? It wants to order Mirage 2000 in big numbers. This is a typical decision of headless chicken without using any logic. By this time Mirage 2000 is 2 decade old design, with the manufacturer already closing its line, and is producing a newer plane. But IAF as it is without any vision, wants the older plane only. That time IAF did not think that Twin engine is more important (as it then came out in MMRCA which was fixed for Rafale to win) they did not feel AESA was important. In a nutshell, IAF was buying foreign planes that would have fought well in last war, they were not preparing for the next war like the Russians or Americans. I still dont get it, what is with IAF and "medium weight" I did ask a few serving professionals in IAF and also foreign air forces. They say it might be india specific requirement maybe, but for them its the role and capability that counts. Speed, range, load, ability to manuever, etc etc. The weight is not primary point,
Single engine fighters are usually used for interceptions and protecting vital cities, and areas, being single engine they are cheaper to fly and use and they fly and fight within their strength. They allow the enemy to come into their area and then take them down, this is their strength and also weakness, Because having short range, they cannot intercept a plane which is far from their combat range which is short.
On other hand twin engine planes are heavier, and hence can be put with more heavy avionics that makes this plane a killer, but these being expensive to build and use cannot be used as much as single engine plane as the cost of the sortie will be almost twice as that of single engine plane and availability lower.
If we say that AMCA design is fixed, we still have LCA II design to play with. LCA II can have two smaller engines which has combined thrust say at least 20-30% more than F-414E engine. Having two engines will bring reliability. When I think of an excellent plane., I think about F-5E Tiger. It was a nice clean design, the aim of the plane was to be a good interceptor and later became an MRCA and could even conduct a nuclear strike if required. It was easy to maintain and both the engines could be changed in few hours at most. So my view of the next plane for IAF should be one which is easier to maintain (modular approach) should be capable, cheap to buy, fly and maintain, and should be one hell of a plane
Even today they do it without any regard to the fact that PLAAF has already started inducting 5th generation fighter jets. Just recently people were euphoric over possible purchase of T-22M. That is when Chine almost a half decade ago copied a soviet bomber with similar range which is called H-6 whose advance version is called H-6K, which it can produce as many as it needs. And we on other side don't even know how much life these used T-22Ms has left in them that we want to purchase? No one will ever answer how these 6-7 bombers can produce effect of 50-60 H-6Ks that China can field?
Firstly China is an economic super power whose economy rivals USA. The balance of trade is very much in Chinas favour. China holds as I understand 500 billion dollars worth of US govt bonds, and if they sell it, the dollar will crash. Thus China in a way holds the trigger for killing USA ecnomically. China has a developed industry with excellent research and development facility. When we are finding it difficult to make one project, they have two ambitious products out of which one is already flying. Americans have good quality planes, but China has tbe resources, capability and funds to produce their planes in far bigger number and over run like locusts. Chinese weapons were not sophisticated as they were simple copied weapons. Usuauly their weapons were copied 10 years after Russians produced it, but now they develop their own. They have their own Bullpup assault rifle which is used by their army. They develop and produce their own tanks, planes, ships. And now USA is struggling in this economic push with China, USA economy is very much debt loaded. The chinese economy, not so much. Also importantly China has a stable govt, the leadership changes every 10 years with economic policies followed. But in USA there are different groups about economic policies democrats and republicans etc. USA has a vision but it is getting blurred, China is the county with excellent vision, but they are also losing their way.
You know, examples are in plenty and i can go on and on. But to sum up. I ask few questions. What is that makes China most feared adversary of USA? Isn't it its military? Where does Chinese military draws its strength from, imported weapons or a leadership and an industry (which can provide modern military hardware in time bound, cost effective manner and keep them provided with spares and replacements even during hostilities, without caring if they have to beg borrow or steal)? Can we match such an enemy whose industry can develop two 5th generation fighters, a heavy lifter in 60 ton payload capacity, a medium lifter in 20 tons category, helicopters of almost all types (covering almost all weight class) with purchase of just 100+ FGFAs, 36 Rafales and unknown M-MRCA, all still on paper (even if we manage to buy them what is the guarantee that their suppliers won't halt supply of critical spares during war in the name of not supporting war) and only 30-40 air lifters (to support our troops in Himalays but they are all dependent on foreign manufactures) against Chinese ability to field hundreds of these kinds and also augment their strength at will if the need arises thanks to its sacrifices that paid in the form of Y-20 and in some time will be by the name Y-30?
If we can find honest answers to these questions, i am sure in twenty years we will be able to rival China in true sense. Otherwise! Otherwise, is not even an option. If we don't make us internally strong quickly, please brace to lose Arunnachal Pradesh. And no, these 36 Rafales won't be able to save us, nor will be even 100 FGFAs( even if we manage to buy them in time, which i highly doubt). Only thing that will stand between is 500 AMCA (95 % indigenous), a 55-60 ton variant of Arjun/Arjun MK-4 (but will only come if IA supports Arjun by ordering 500 MK-2s and 500 MK-3s), a S-300 class AAD based VLRSAM etc.Sorry for OT.
We thought the military leadership was beyond any doubt, but now we doubt their real intentions, I think perhaps a better way might be to make a nuclear testing and then being sanctioned and then we have to develop everything on our own.. If we have the crutches of help we are never going to develop our own product because countries will be eager to help us to kill our own project. But when there is a sanction, these countries will not be able to help us thus we are really left on our own to be strong. China had such an era when no one would do business with China as it was a communist country and that is when it started to develop. It focused on infra structure, better roads, bigger ports, they built, 6-10 lane highways so that people and products can be transpported fast. It takes just 1 hour to travel to next city which is about 100 kms away. We have this on express way, but we need more like this. A stronger military is needed but for that the economy should be strong to fund the production. If you dont have a strong economy, there is no way a military can survive and then it goes into power struggle and coup. Thus, economic and military progress should go together to achieve it.
