shiv wrote:deejay wrote:...
While reading this link I realised that the term AMCA is not used by IAF and IN. They call this project Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA).
Deejay in two separate links that I read along with the intense forum discussions recently I got the following information
1. When a MiG 21 replacement was needed by the IAF, it was DRDO that inserted the idea that FBW and composites should be part of the specs, not IAF
2. More recently, when the IAF wanted a follow on fighter - an MRCA, the IAF did not ask for 5th gen technology. It was the DRDO that inserted the idea that the new fighter should have "5th gen" technologies
I am beginning to feel that DRDO may be the guilty party in piggybacking research programs or the operational requirements of the IAF.
The DRDO research should be separate from meeting operational requirements within timelines
Prof Prodyt Das - a controversial figure makes the following observation. Ideas like 4th gen and 5th gen are simply benchmarks in technology. There is no guarantee that a 3 gen aircraft will not shoot down a 4th or 5th gen aircraft. The technology level is not the same as effectiveness or lethality
Shiv Sir, the Services want Military Capabilites (as in better flight performance etc) while DRDO wants Technological Capabilites (as in Technologies like Supercruise, Stealth, TVC, etc). What is Next Gen to 4th Gen Tejas but a 5th Gen AMCA. Essentially, they want one and the same thing but Services call it NGFA and the Research Labs call it AMCA.
IMO, it is absolutely OK.
Unfortunately, we have an "Us vs. Them" attitude between DRDO and the Services and also among people who comment / care for the developments. Folks have their biases and that comes in between their judgement and rationality. Who is "Us" and who is "them" depends on the persons backgrounds.
On various threads posters are finger pointing and calling our own folks from different organisation names - I recall Ramana Sir had put up a graphic of level of argument by what is being done by those arguing.
Commodore Balaji, becomes the boss and guess what some see in it - A slap on IAF's face. Really? I thought, wow, a military man heading a group of scientists and that is serious synergy. Synergy is what is needed. Not, name calling and divisive views.
DRDO is a research lab and its scientists want to add technological capabilities like Fifth Gen stuff. IAF is military service and its Air Marshals want to add features which make for a better fighter in a military sense. I say it is perfect - that is how it should be. Both groups laying out what they want and we work to reach that.
But in India we get into our ghettos and shout on top of our voice - You @#$%^&*. There goes cooperation out of the window. If only we work towards understanding the why's of the individual organisations, a lot of time wastage will be eliminated.
Next, what is quick timeline?
Fifth Generation is not just a USA thing anymore. It is a technological parasite which has acquired new host MIC's elsewhere. Do we really have a choice - militarily and hence technologically? By starting in 2015 we are aiming for 2030 (and I think this is being optimistic - development, research, proto types, pitfalls, change in requirements - shouldn't we change if something like R-60 to R-73 upgrade is needed and finally technological hangups, political hangups, may be a war in between, a non friendly GOI, etc. I forgot - engines).
If we start on 5th Gen in 2022 after Tejas Mk 2 when will we have the 5th Gen plane ready - by today's estimate of 15 years it will be 2037. I think 2030 is better.
There is no quick timeline. There is no shortcut - even if we import we will take 10 years if not 15. MMRCA proves it. The first RAFALE will be here in 2017 if it works out.
What guarantees are there that if we drop the 5th Gen specific requirements of Super Cruise, Thrust Vectoring, VLO design etc, will the AMCA / NGFA come out in lesser time?
The F35 development cycle, the PAK FA development cycle all prove that it is time taking for everyone and so will it be for us. The difference is that in the US we don't see the USAF or the USMC dissing the F35 development or the scientists dissing the American Forces and calling them names (Not to the level we have come down to here). I am sure, there would have been hugely frustrating moments but they back themselves.
R&D is not a known path. There are unknowns. Evolving tech is also an unknown. DRDO will face delays. Similarly, IAF Air Marshals of today will not foresee all things of 2030 or even 2025. If for eg: by 2025 the AESA upgrades or evolves in to something like 360 degree lock-shoot and 100% kill gene should the IAF ask for the change at that point? Should the DRDO accept the change and if they do, should it be used to blame DRDO for delays in FOC beyond 2030?