Yes, And I stand by it, it's not just related to the engine deal, but their tantrums for mmrca instead of ordering more mk1a Tejas to arrest falling sq nos and replace the flying coffin aka MiG-21 , or not committing more no.s to mk2,
I am aware of corruption in the Indian armed forces, Chandigarh lobby, etc., etc., yes.
But, this line of reasoning -
The solution to dwindling sqns is ordering more LCA MK1A, is not only immature but reflects a lack of understanding of air combat. While this is not expected from civilian traffic, their dismissal of IAF's concerns and unsolicited advice of what and what not IAF should do is really hilarious.
I get into this debate almost once a month as to why IAF's solution to falling squadrons is
not ordering 500+ LCA Mk1A which will make Indian
dephens fanboys and our enemies equally aroused.
I will go into the technical gravy only once, get it or stick with your uninformed opinion.
A proper, (not kangaroo) airforce requires a mix of different platforms for different operations. Light, medium, and heavy fighters have their own advantages and issues, and an airforce having high domination of a single category of jet is detrimental to its operational capability.
Light jets (LCA, Mig-21, F-5, FA-50, JF-17)
Advantages - Low operational cost, cheaper to manufacture & maintain.
Disadvantages - Short range, low payload capacity, power constraints (smaller engine), more vulnerable (to damage), less margin for upgrade/MLU.
Heavy jets (F-15, Su-27/30/35, J-20)
Advantages - Large combat radius, more payload, more sensors & weapons, can be upgraded endlessly due to space, more tolerance to damage.
Disadvantages - Costlier to operate, maintain, and manufacture in general.
Medium jets are somewhere in the middle of both.
An airforce having a light-fighter heavy airforce will doom itself to being restricted around the airbase, catering to multiple sorties for a single mission and other operational problems.
An airforce having a heavy-fighter dominant airforce will suffer from low sortie rates and high operational costs. E.g., - RuAF
When you look at feats like IAF conducting operations across the frontiers, deep into Malacca strait or Indian Ocean, it won't be possible with LCA Mk1.
What IAF needs is a medium fighter jet in numbers. This is where comes LCA Mk2, and hence IAF is so bullish about it. If it gets delayed, it must be supplemented by some other medium jet, like Rafale (ideally), or some other option, not a light fighter jet.
Has IAF exerted the kind of pressure they have on GoI for more funding to be released for engine dev, FTB etc ...like the kind they put for mmrca ? Nope. Shows their priorities. I Agree MoD Babu's and GoI is also to blame re. funding, but IAF can't escape their share of responsibility.
Agree, but you have to see, IAF is an end-user. They will focus more on the platform & its capabilities, not the nitty-gritty of it. Of course, IAF (and Indian Armed Forces or any Govt. institutes in general) are very myopic about their actions. IAF will always prefer a jet that has good capabilities and is easy to maintain over a platform which limited capability and a troublesome engine. Again, this is a myopic world view, but this is how all govt. institutions in India work.
Irrelevant comparison, they don't have the kind of enemies we do and are vassals of US with US protection
It is pretty relevant. Since they don't have our kind of enemies, they have the leeway & funds to develop these niche technologies at their own pace. They can pour billions of $ and decades to perfect the engine,
we don't.
If we sit on our asses to develop a jet from scratch, by the time we are completed J&K and NE will be gone. What we need is parallel development while not compromising our current strength, and we are heavily compromised on strength right now.
www.livemint.com
