Good golly- you consider that attributing a motive? Why you began your post with a claim that the MCA be cancelled and the PAK-FA was good enough!
Now you dont want India to buy a JSF because it means being tied to apron strings abroad - fine, but then what about the PAKFA?
It too will come with strings. Thats all I was saying that on the one hand you want to avoid dependence, but then say we should rely on the PAKFA alone...because if we do that, we are very dependent on Russia.
And whats with the "sir" stuff ...could we kindly drop that..I mean, on the one hand, all the attacks below..plus "sir", why?
You stated that the IAF air chiefs wanted supercruise and thrust vectoring and tried to bluff your way through with a link that did not say that.
What bluff. I have posted a clear link above by a respected Indian website (Domain-b) stating what IAF requirements are, Domain-b which btw is the only one running an independent aero sub site, and all you did was flatly deny it calling it Russian. So who's bluffing here?
Or rather, can you think for a second without shooting the messenger and stopping this useless "you bluff/i bluff" stuff - whether the article may actually be correct? Kindly stop thinking about how much you want to put me down and focus on whether what the article is saying is true..thats all I am asking.
Naik is on record mentioning attributes of a 5G fighter above. I repost it for the fourth time ..Is he bluffing.. I dont think so.http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories178.htm
The current or fifth generation cutting edge of fighter design combines previous emphasis on versatility with new developments such as thrust vectoring, short takeoff/ landing (STOL), composite materials, super cruise, stealth technology, advanced radar s and integrated avionics designed to reduce the pilot’s workload while vastly improving situational awareness.
At the very least, it points to how the IAF is thinking and what it wants.
Now we have another forum member saying that supercruise and thrust vectoring are not features of the MCA.
Sure, and here I was thinking I was pointing to the fact that the IAF may well include them in the MCA given its current proclivity of what it wants in fighters.
That means that the IAF is not going to get what you and your sources claim thayt they want - unless they buy PAKFA (as per your source) or JSF (as you suggest).
What sources, which sources and what you are going on about now! When did I suggest the JSF be procured or the PAKFA - all I said was that if there is no MCA, other OEMs stand a chance.
Seriously, you are making no sense here.
If I say anything, a bunch of guys will stand up and yell about chai wallah and paanwallah not allowed and only links.
And now you want sources!
Ok fine - a couple of years back I was informed in a casual conversation that the IAF wants features such as supercruise on the MCA, also more "stealth" - so what will you do now.
Hence i dont find it anything strange that these may indeed end up on a MCA.
If the IAF buys PAKFA or JSF we are going to be dependent on a foreign supplier for the life cycle of the aircraft which is in the region of at least 40 years maybe more. I don't like that. If you don't like it you haven't said so.
I have said it a million times why else am I saying that I'd rather have a MCA with 30% dependence rather than a PAK-FA with 80% over its life cycle!
But clearly Indians are not going to be able to meet the IAF's requirements if those requirements include supercruise and thrust vectoring. What is so difficult about admitting that.
Problem is you are going on and on about the requirements being set by anyone and everyone apart from the IAF themselves. As things stand, the IAF will decide what the AMCA will be. And irrespective of how many names you call me, make sarcastic comments etc,. the reality is that enough news sources point to the IAFs stated interest in things such as stealth supercruise thrust vectoring.
Now do I want a simple MCA sure - but I am not sure the IAF will settle for one. They didnt settle for a simple LCA and now we have a LCA MK2 or whatever, why would they settle for a LCA MK3 when in that timeframe, they will be offered every brochure there is!
I am personally doggedly against Indians who slobber after JSF or PAKFA just for supercruise or Thrust vectoring (which you claim, without proof the IAF wants) If that is being personal there you are. I hate the idea. We are not going to get either from an Indian source an are going to sell ourselves out to a foreign supplier.
Your hate of the idea is apparently so much that you'll attack everyone who provides proof to you that the IAF is thinking on those lines and may end up having it on the MCA.
Whats that saying about shooting the messenger?
Just because you think that what is realistic (setting simpler requirements) is the answer, it does not mean the IAF thinks the same way or everyone else. We;ll have to live with it.
Personally, all I'd be worried about is that the MCA is done and meets the IAF requirements (even with 30% dependence or whatever). I'd take that anyday over us having to run to Russia for gun barrels for T-90 tanks, looking through the tawdry pictures of some Navy guy with a Russian lady or the same applied to any country from elsewhere (lest now someone attacks me for being anti Russia).
Now go ahead, call me names, say I am bluffing and continue to attack me.