Filtercoffee
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 615
- Likes
- 214
It is very regrettable for a quit job if any...I honestly hope you dont quit on us and stay with us. Further it is great to have a sesoned aerospace professional view which has come from you. We will miss your views as it was great to have you u with us....please stay.HAHA. I agree with the notion of multi role aircraft. But remember that the total squadron strength requirements are still based on individual roles for the aircraft even though most new ones are multi role.
My peeve has always been that IAF doesn't use its money that wisely. I understand the limited budget IAF gets as part of the limited defense budget.
My thinking is that IAF ends up spending its money not necessarily in a way that optimizes the force efficiency; the spending patterns are contorted to fit the weird procedures/rules laid down by clueless bureaucrats!
In general, if you noticed, the rules/procedures for spending on existing aircraft (for upgrades etc) are generally much more lax than they are for procuring newer aircraft - for me its still hard to swallow the price of Mirage upgrades!! The bureaucracy has weird norms to shun 'single vendor' bids!! If you really want the best - there'll only be one of it. But the procedures forces the military to go for run of the mill commodity. The weird thing again is that they don't realize that upgrades (for which the procedures are much more lax than for procuring a new aircraft) essentially means a single vendor situation - and most of the time that vendor fleeces IAF!!
The way light/medium/heavy is defined is also very funny. Gripen which actually has similar base weight as Tejas does is actually classified in India as Medium class because it can carry more payload and that its max weight puts it in a different category!! It's all the more funny when ADA scientists try to explain why Tejas will carry less payload than Gripen (which has similiar engine) - because Gripen is higher 'weight' category plane!!
Net-net, I do think that inside the IAF they know that they need aircraft for specific roles/needs. But when that bubbles through the bureaucratic and political malaise it gets contorted to some weird sound bytes. I still scratch my head everytime Parrikar says "there is still a need for 100+ single engined foreign aircraft". I don't understand how any of those words fit a fighting doctrine of the air force!!