NRao wrote:^^^^^
My impression - based on those vids - is that there is a strong leaning towards the "West". And, that, in the IAF, will remain. My thinking is that the FGFA is in warm waters and one that is getting warmer.
In my understanding, this leaning to the west needs to be seen in context of our force structure and overall limitations under which Services operate. Indulge me as I elaborate:
1. BRFites talk glowingly about China and the single mindedness with which it has built the domestic military-industrial complex. What people forget that behind this pursuit lies a clear political and military thought-process. I have included military as well because PLA is one of the pillars of Communist rule in that country. And sits at the high table in CMC and gives it's inputs on wide range of national objectives and policies.
2. The strategic culture ingrained in the Chinese made them realize the requirement for nuclear weapons - weapons which could be used to secure the Chinese heartland inspite of the rank inferiority of Chinese armed forces.
3. Till the time Chinese lacked quality, they went with the quantity. From a large standing army with thousand and thousand of tanks to large AF with fighters from 50s-60s and 70s to navy will large number of submarines.
4. The GW-1 opened the Chinese eyes to what technology could do to modern-warfare and what kind of RMA - Revolution in Military Affairs - they had brought in. And you had the Chinese resorting to every trick in the book to gain technology for themselves.
5. Today, when the Chinese have right kind of technology, they're moving from quantity to quality. Just look at the way PLA has downsized. And tried to incorporate 'All-Arms Warfare'. What were earlier Divisions are but mere Brigades now. But full strength and with whatever latest tech the Chinese can feed. For all you know, the PLA may actually be smaller than IA in overall numbers!!!
6. In contrast to that, Services in India have been so far removed from the high-table that they themselves don't know how things will pan out.
7. Further, we've grossly under-spent on our armed forces (as %age of GDP given our threat levels) leading to present levels of sanctioned strength for different Services. Primarily in terms of quantity and nature of weapon systems held.
8. So, while we've relatively smaller sized armed forces, they're equipped predominantly with weapons (or were equipped-slowly changing) which were meant to be used in LARGE NUMBERS by the country which manufactured them!
9. Just take some examples - The T-72 tanks, BMP-1/2 IFV, Mig-21/23/27 or Su-7 and what have you.
10. We're trying to marry two disparate concepts here - While we should ideally have a weapon system with superlative PER UNIT capability (to compensate for lower numbers), we're using weapon system with low technology which was meant to be used in a system where quantity trumped quality.
11. So, it is not surprising that IAF favors the Mirage-2000 or wants something like Rafale. We've increased the PER UNIT capability of systems wherever we can - Su-30 MKI is a prime example. (I know T-90 is an exception...
)
12. We'll never have the numbers we want - therefore it is important we have superior PER UNIT capability in all our systems.
13. And this means that domestic MIL-IND Complex really needs to buckle-up because only way this transition to high-end products can be managed in our limited resources is for things to come from in-house.