Boreas wrote:I think the reason "acquiring fighters in hurry" was superseded by the reason "to acquire new technology (read western) that could be applied in homegrown programs and to gain political ground" and above all the reason "to maintain a quality-wise superiority on PLAAF"[/b]
Boss, that is why there is the Pakfa and AMCA. What more technology will the MRCA provide? The FGFA is far ahead technologically, period. The greatest reason for the MRCA was always as an "interim" solution i.e. a quick stopgap measure to counter falling numbers. Rest is all afterthought. For ex.
the idea that the MRCA will help gain a distinct qualitative advantage over the PLAAF is bogus in light of the fact that the PRC is already on its way to produce a gen 5 bird. Its upgraded flankers and J10s should be quite competitive with most MRCA candidates more or less.[/quote]
The next best PLAAF has is variants of J-10, J-11 with some hundred SU-27/30.
I ask you a simple question do you think ur sugeestion of fielding Jags/Mig29/used Mirage2k-5 against them gonna work?
or, wouldn't we have a better chance of holding the skies when IAF will be flying a EF/rafale/SH against them??
Err, no. Not when there are uber upgraded MKIs en masse. No need for eurofritter or anything to deal with riffraff - MKI is more than enough. Backed with upgraded M2k-5 + MiG-29, and LCA. Adding another 4.5 gen bird to the inventory is of no use whatever. Don't forget not too long ago - just 5 years or so - the IAF felt and described the need for an MRCA via a Mirage 2000-5. In 3-4 years little has changed to alter this.
Your two statements the underlined statement here and in the above paragraph ARE CONTARDICTORY.
Nothing contradictory - read and comprehend. I said in light of the J20 (Gen 5) a/c, MRCA is of little use since it obviously not designed to defeat a LO design. IOWs, it is the Pakfa/AMCA that will hold the fort/attack vs. Gen 5 chinese threat. Also note that I was speaking of upgraded flankers/J10s (B variant) as a competitive threat against the MRCA and NOT the current versions. The M2k/MiG-29 upgs in a networked envirnoment should be more than enough to deal with current versions and challenge future versions. By the time the J11/J10B sees operational service, one can assume that a superior Su-30MKI should be operational thereby nullifying the need for a similarly specced MRCA.
On one side you are saying chinese 4th gen planes will have advantage over contenders of MRCA who are mostly 4.5gen fighters. And then you are saying the upgraded M2ks, M29s, Jags (whom we are upgrading to get "some" technologies of these 4.5gen fighters) will have competitive advantage over chinese! Plz tell how?
Read again what I said - I did not say Chinese 4 gen a/c will have an advantage against MRCA anywhere in my post - you are surely mixing things up and putting words in my mouth. The point is curent Chinese 4 gen a/c should be tackled by MKI, M2k/29 upg, LCA, Bison. Near future chinese 4.5 gen threat can be dealt with MLUed MKI + upg M2k/M29, LCA 2. If J20 comes along nicely, only 5 gen type will be competitive. In either case, MRCA is unnecessary. To summarize what I said:
a) MRCA is not competitive against a pure 5 gen design
b) What little advantage an MRCA might provide against 4.5 gen a/c will be achieved and sustained by a upgraded MKI fleet backed by M2k/29 upgrades and Tejas Mk2.
c)Tech gap cannot be filled via MRCA (there is nothing there either in terms of heavy partnerships or in terms of novelty in design/tech).
d) MRCA is mainly an interim/number filling solution because of - retirement of older types and delays in LCA.
The primary goal of MRCA is D) above, which can be achieved by getting greater #s of LCA, M2k-5, MIG-29 and perhaps a sqd more of MKI.
In your second argument, you urself are accepting the weakness of choice you have excercised. PAF is no more a threat to us, now our plans are focused on PLAAF.
For the last time, read my post and understand it better before making ridiculous assumptions.
And all you are offering is that we can be defensive against them! If all we wanted is to be defensive, don't you think it will be better to have a maasive investment in creating a lethal air defense/SAM network. Which will protect us without staking lives of our pilot.
Irrelevant. SAMs cannot replace fighter requirements although it surely would help in layering the AD network.
I think we will have a clear advantage over any of PLAAF 4th gen fighter with our MRCA. Its a fact.
4th gen? Sure, but so will the MKI and upgraded M2k/MiG29. There is nothing to support such a claim against upgraded PLAAF birds though - at least not in reliable open sources. More pertinently, if an MRCA holds such an advantage as you assume, why not an upgraded MKI? IOWs, why invest in redundancy?
1. When the idea of MRCA was popped up in ealry 2000s It was a stopgap solution (and everybody has M2k in mind as a solution). But this is year 2011, it is NO MORE an interim or gap filling solution.
SO then what is the aim of the MRCA? Not interim? OK tell me what the MRCA brings that the Pakfa, LCA Mk2, MKI upgrade and AMCA will not? And don't tell me that it will buff up numbers - I already recommended faster, easier solutions to that. At best, it can act as a hedge against delays/failures in current programs. It cannot offer the kind of quality or access to tech that the pakfa does, it cannot create more infrastructural value than the LCA or AMCA, it is at best another screwdriver TOT type thing - no better than the MKI, which INdia already produces.
3. "Heavy investment" is a mirage. On what to invest heavily? A building won't produce a fighter.. you MUST first have the relevant knowledge. Without technology you can't make anything. And if you try to re-discover everything it will only push you back. (V K Saraswat frequently admits it in public domain, we cant grow in isolation.)
4. I am glad you bought up how US/Rus/Fra/Uk build there technology. (Leaving the chinkos, they dun believe in R&D)
Try to find answer of these questions - Who developed first stealth fighter concept? Was is the US? What is the origin of USAF B-22 design? What is the base of US and USSR's nuclear program? If you invest sometime in that you will find nobody started from scratch. And nobody just made up great things by bread and butter R&D.
5. MRCA will provide us with important inputs in avionics, AESA, counter measures ets.
6. Nobody is stopping funding for LCA/AMCA. But just by injecting more money we can't fast forward time. They will take time.
Tejas is an example of how hard it is to start something and sustain it. Its success will depend upon how we use the lessons we learnt there, in the AMCA program.[/quote]
Dont patronize, and don't ask irrelevant, tangential questions without clearly reading my post
CM.
The law of diminishing returns begins to kick in somewhere. For us, India will be buying 126 Typhoons. Money talks. India will be a key partner going forward and it will develop the aircraft according to its own needs.
