NRao wrote:Old stuff rehashed perhaps, but ....................
On "scam", "science project" and "dead Albatross?", why is the PAK-FA any different? Just because the Russians have built 5 working models for testing and have made good progress, it can never mean that it is doing well and it is even a greater stretch to think it will DO WELL. While the AMCA could be labeled a "scam" for a set of reasons, the PAK-FA could be a "scam" but for a totally different set of reasons. I seriously wonder if India were to drop out of their "5th Gen" effort, if the PAK-FA would be viable (not talking about the Putin effect here). (I sincerely hope that Modi does not invest in the FGFA because of politics.)
Secondly, IAF and its "all aspect stealth". Would the PAK-FA and FGFA have it? I very much doubt it. But, the IAF would enforce that on the AMCA and will let it slide with the Russian product. Now, IF that were to actually pass - I am told such things have occurred on other items in the past - now, THAT would be a true scam.
These are precisely the things that bother me.
In 1989 or so - the MiG 29 flew for the first time in a western air show - it was the Paris air show IIRC. I have videos of the ooh and aahs that were evoked. No one knew then if it was FBW - they assumed it was. later it turned out that the super-manoeuvrability of the MiG 29 (Cobra/Tail Slide) and the Su-27 (Kulbit) were the result of Russian expertise in squeezing the maximum out of conventional aerodynamics without FBW . This was before thrust vectoring and before Russian FBW. India does not even have the experience required to sort out the aerodynamics issues of Saras, IJT and AMCA
For Saras the Germans were invited for "recommendations"
For IJT I think BAe was involved regarding stall/spin
For AMCA I am shocked and disgusted to see on this thread, the same language used by representatives of second rate Indian drug companies pushing their brand of medicine - "Oh our basic drug is imported from France and is approved by USFDA"
So I read on this thread that the damn AMCA has had "supersonic wind tunnel tests in Yamerika" so that is too damn good and we better accept it as final and unbeatable. Honestly this sort of shoddy half capability being passed off as all aspect capability makes me sad and angry. Already I see in your post the beginnings of a future ADA/IADF lungi dance that will be used to "explain" delays to a new generation of BRFites 10 years from now
ADA says "Configuration if final."
IAF says: " Give us best of brochure - all aspect stealth and TV"
ADA says "That is going to stretch timelines"
Earlier I read:
AMCA config studies are completed. Engine req are finalised. Stealth tech is a challenge as also super-manevourability
So what the IAF wants after studying all the world's brochures is unachievable for ADA within any declared timelines.
Why can't we simply make an F/A 18 class aircraft if we want to do something
Secondly if you want to put one man or two men in AMCA it is highly risky. Timelines will be stretched endlessly. Make a smaller unmanned plane and test it. Crash it. Build a supersonic wind tunnel. Build a vertical wind tunnel, Build something around the Kaveri
Why oh why do our self proclaimed experts take the country on what appears to be a wild goose chase that will not be able to meet deadlines? I am not saying they will never do it. They will simply not be able to do it in the stated time frame