Indian Military Aviation

[shiv]

Put in priority how you want IAF fighters in next 20 years:
1. AESA radar.
2. Thurst Vectoring
3. Stealth
4. Having 2 best missiles ie. Python 5 + Meteor.
5. Best Datalink
6. Super Cruise

Probably this is how most BRfites are going to vote:
1. AESA radar
2. Having 2 best missiles ie. Python 5 + Meteor
3. Best Datalink
4. Stealth
5. Thurst Vectoring
6. Super Cruise

This would make a good poll

My vote is for an Indian developed fighter that has the following capabilities that i believe can be developed in india relatively sooner with currently available expertise.

1) AESA
2) Best datalink
4) Good mix of PGM and AAM and ECM capability
5) Great unrefuelled range, aerial refuelling capability
6) Easy, relatively inexpensive maintenance, modular equipment suite
7) Low down time
8) Stealth
9) Supercruise
10 Thrust vectoring - this is IMO more difficult to achieve than supercruise

I put thrust vectoring last because I believe there is a connection between stealth, supercruise, thrust vectoring and maintenance. Stealth means internal weapons, more difficult/expensive maintenance of skin/surface of a/c Stealth also means a bigger aircraft because an aircraft with internal bays is necessarily bigger (bigger cross section) The surface area increases with the square of the radius of cross section and maintenance issues increase with bigger stealthy surface area. The bigger the aircraft the more it will benefit from thrust vectoring (TV). And engine development must come before TV. So TV comes later. Maybe India will get UCAVs before an indigenous TV engine?

I stress that I am talking about what I expect from India given Indian technology. The list changes if we are importing.

[Aditya_V]

What a Bloody waste of USD $5.8 Billion. I still dont understand the $2 Billion purchase of C-130J's. we can invets in more IL-76 and use this Money for LCA.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 859998.cms

US Congress notified on C-17 transport aircraft sale to India

[Brahmananda]

The C-17 deal will be signed for around $3 billion tops, the c-130J was worth a $1 billion and the largest deal signed so far is for the P-8I $2.1 billion. all good acquisitions IMO.

[Aditya_V]

I agree with P 8I, C-130J- ok no equivalent to carry vehicles for SF, but still dont see why C-17 over MLU plus purchase of additional IL-76's. 3 to 5.7 Billion is lot of money.

[shukla]

The C-17 deal will be signed for around $3 billion tops, the c-130J was worth a $1 billion and the largest deal signed so far is for the P-8I $2.1 billion. all good acquisitions IMO.

Thats the disadvantage of going through the FMS route.. With competitive bidding there is a lot more choice and also scope for the buyer to negotiate a better price.. I bet there would be a lot more than just murmurs (in favour of the Il-76) if India is somehow made to fork out $5.8bn for 10 C-17s (even with extras).. Thats just staggering upper limit to quote for starters...

[NRao]

But Shiv I thought Supercruise is sideaffect of new technologies as .......

Been there since the 50s!!!!! The US did not see a need for it and did not insist on it till the F-22.

Secondly, even f-35 and f-22 have option of hanging armament outside, so definetly we yindoo baniyas are going to have it (I hope)!

Even regarding MRCA IAF has not asked for SC. Its only certain fanboys all over the forums making sounds "my gripen", "my EF" can supercruise is making it popular amongst jingoes.

IAF did not ask (I do not know since I have not seen the RFP), but the IAF could get it for no extra cost?

If you make a poll on these lines.
Put in priority how you want IAF fighters in next 20 years:
1. AESA radar.
2. Thurst Vectoring
3. Stealth
4. Having 2 best missiles ie. Python 5 + Meteor.
5. Best Datalink
6. Super Cruise

Probably this is how most BRfites are going to vote:
1. AESA radar
2. Having 2 best missiles ie. Python 5 + Meteor
3. Best Datalink
4. Stealth
5. Thurst Vectoring
6. Super Cruise

Unless we want the IAF to be a mediocre AF, they better force their will and get this and ALL items that are of value.

No more time for priority lists. Just do it and get it done.

[sum]

The C-17 deal will be signed for around $3 billion tops, the c-130J was worth a $1 billion and the largest deal signed so far is for the P-8I $2.1 billion. all good acquisitions IMO.

So, now Pak can look forward to some more freebies sourced by SDRE $$$

[shukla]

Air power will decide future conflicts: Antony

"In the years to come, aerospace power will prove to be the decisive factor in shaping the outcome of conflicts. Indian Air Force is in the process of transforming itself into a strategic aerospace force befitting our national growth and aspirations," Antony said.

He was addressing the IAF Commanders' Conference in New Delhi on Monday. Antony also said, "Combat units of the Indian Air Force have focused on precision capabilities to enhance their combat potential. These abilities were amply demonstrated at the recently concluded 'Exercise Vayushakti'. The day, dusk and night operations with 'Live' firing, bore ample testimony to the nation's capability to tackle any threat."

[Kersi D]

Is super cruising something super-duper or something very state-of-fart ?

Concorde and TU 144 were flying in the 1960s onwards and they had super cruise and that too at Mach 2+

K

And Kersi I am sure you will remember the Boeing SST that was designed to compete with Concorde but was shot down mainly by US environmentalists who said it would be no good for the US because of overland noise.

Shiv. Thanks for remembering the Boeing SST.

YES I know I am going off track. I think it was the US aircraft companies and NOT the US environmentalists who killed the Concorde /supersonic transport. Concorde was way ahead of Boeing SST and would have grabbed a large market share. US aircraft companies could not stand the fact that the British and French (of all the people) could make an aircraft superior to anything they had. So the best option was to ban supersonic transport on some flimsy grounds of overland noise.

If US could do such a thing to British, would they spare us ????

K

[ShauryaT]

1) AESA
2) Best datalink
4) Good mix of PGM and AAM and ECM capability
5) Great unrefuelled range, aerial refuelling capability
6) Easy, relatively inexpensive maintenance, modular equipment suite
7) Low down time
Stealth
9) Supercruise
10 Thrust vectoring - this is IMO more difficult to achieve than supercruise

IOW: The first seven points are challenging enough and should be delivered upon first, before taking up the last three. The last three will be a significant order of effort by themselves, will they not?

BTW: Shiv: The delivery of a first rate engine, should also be a milestone in this list, which should be feasible with Indian tech. Although understand Kaveri will now have foreign inputs, do not know what that means in terms of IP and development of native capabilities.

[sunilUpa]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 719071.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 720628.JPG
Courtesy Livefist

Excellet, atleast someone is putting their reserves to good use by acquiring companies and technology instead of passing of interes earned on deposit as profit and growth!

Time for Indian pvt. companies to look beyonf Indain defence markey, for they will never get a level playing field.

[shiv]

YES I know I am going off track. I think it was the US aircraft companies and NOT the US environmentalists who killed the Concorde /supersonic transport. Concorde was way ahead of Boeing SST and would have grabbed a large market share. US aircraft companies could not stand the fact that the British and French (of all the people) could make an aircraft superior to anything they had. So the best option was to ban supersonic transport on some flimsy grounds of overland noise.

If US could do such a thing to British, would they spare us ????

K

Of course. bcos V R peaceful and democratic the US would not do that to us

[negi]

only thing on my wishlist for AMCA that hasn't been mentioned till now is a CFT.

Yep a leaner and agile one for air superiority and the other with long legs to take care of either of our neighbors.

[shiv]

IOW: The first seven points are challenging enough and should be delivered upon first, before taking up the last three. The last three will be a significant order of effort by themselves, will they not?

BTW: Shiv: The delivery of a first rate engine, should also be a milestone in this list, which should be feasible with Indian tech. Although understand Kaveri will now have foreign inputs, do not know what that means in terms of IP and development of native capabilities.

Absolutely, and that subject brings me to thrust vectoring as a "requirement" for an Indian aircraft. Thrust vectoring is intimately related to the engine and if you don't have your own engine to play with and not even a test bed to play with engines you develop, asking for thrust vectoring is like naming your grandchildren when you are 7 years old.

The minute thrust vectoring becomes a "requirement" for an Indian aircraft we are looking at phoren dependence for 50 years. The younger members of BR - who may be 15 years old today will be 65 when they recall this. I will be dead. On an OT note I want to point out how history repeats itself. Younger generations always say that they will be different, but you see that the young generation of the 60s - are now envisaging and planning for the same level of phoren dependence that the older generation of the 50s and 60s. It is always easier to name your grandchildren than have them the way you want. I was less than 10 years old when I saw (with wonder and awe) a black and white photo of a Jaguar in a propagandu magazine called "SPAN". Little did I know at that time that this same Jaguar would be one of the mainstays of the IAF at a time when people of my generation are already grandparents. And we still have Indians of my children's generation slobbering after glossies of phoren goodies. Looking, as i did, with "wonder and awe" at how the US's requirements are being met. And believing that this is the way India must go. That is what two earlier generations did, and look where we are? What will today's generation see in 50 years? IMO they are likely to see more of same. In the 1960s we had a great Indian fighter and a jet trainer (HF 24 and HJT 16). And no engine. And a 90% phoren equipped IAF. In 2010 we are seeing a great Indian fighter (LCA) , and a trainer (Sitara). And no engine. And a 90% phoren equipped IAF. The only thing that we have done in between is get older, have more babies and create more grandparents.

We simply have to move out of this. We have to stop looking at phoren goodies, drooling at their tech and making them our requirements. How we can get out of that addiction that is another issue - but unless we have the mindset to do that we will go on like this for centuries. It is already half a century since the HF 24. Our requirements must be met from our capabilities.

Research into advanced tech and meeting today's requirements are two different things. Meet today's requirements first with what you have got. Look to develop the future for yourself. Do not imagine you can make the future come today. For the US the future is today. The US's yesterday is India's today. We ignore this reality at our peril. The price is dependence forever.

[nachiket]

Screw 5 gen other than PAKFA and build a good 4.5 gen MCA in India.

I have to disagree with you here sir. Supercruise might just be unimportant in the Indian context as you say, but that is not the defining characteristic of a 5th gen fighter. The defining characteristic is all-aspect Stealth (not just LO tech). Any fighter program which begins in this decade would be pretty much useless if not designed ground up to have internal weapons bays and extremely low RCS. Even in the best case scenario if the AMCA program is given full funding say in 2011 and managed excellently throughout the development cycle, we can't expect the aircraft to enter service in squadron strength before 2023-2025. And it would be expected to serve as one of IAF's frontline fighters for the next 40 years at least. That will not be possible unless it is a 5th generation aircraft with very low RCS, internal weapons, advanced datalink and all the other bells and whistles (including supercruise if possible). And I think the IAF knows it. Ergo, the AMCA.

[nachiket]

only thing on my wishlist for AMCA that hasn't been mentioned till now is a CFT.

Yep a leaner and agile one for air superiority and the other with long legs to take care of either of our neighbors.

Um.. CFT == Conformal Fuel Tank?? I don't get it.

[shiv]

Any fighter program which begins in this decade would be pretty much useless if not designed ground up to have internal weapons bays and extremely low RCS.

What is the basis for this assertion? Even before you say this - I want to point out that I have already disagreed with this for reasons stated above, an I am only interested in knowing if there is any reasoning in this beyond what the US and other nations with advanced aerospace technologies have stated as their requirements.

These are, to my mind a rehash of the LCA argument. When the LCA was being designed people said "Any aircraft being designed in this decade needs fly-by-wire or it will be pretty useless" in the same tone as your statement "Any fighter program which begins in this decade would be pretty much useless if not designed ground up to have internal weapons bays and extremely low RCS." In the meantime an analog MiG 29 came and went, scaring the crap out of F 16s along the way, and also a generation of Chinese aircraft exported to others. And the LCA is still coming.

All I am saying is that your intent is noble. But noble intent is useless in the face of an incapable technical-industrial base which is 20-30 years behind the US/Europe. In this decade we have to use what we have now to design for this decade. If we don't have the tech we should not say "The US has internal weapons and stealth, so we want it too"

We should not say that. But we will keep on saying it and sell ourselves out to the glossiest brochure producer.

[Gaur]

^^
You are absolutely right when you say that we lack the capability to develop a true fifth generation fighter. You are also partially right in saying that our requirements are different than those of US and other developed nations. You are partially correct because, as per the current "open source" information, we would not be facing any fifth generation fighters in our neighborhood. You are also partially wrong because, just because our neighbor may not have 5th gen capability in the foreseeable future does not mean that 5th gen fighters would not be a huge asset for us. No matter the Nation, stealth a/cs will follow the laws of physics and will remain as potent in Indian as in USA. However, this point is also somewhat arguable considering that it is much better to match China with indigenous 4.5 gen a/c (assuming that they do not possess 5th gen a/cs in near future), than with imported 5th gen. But your assessment that we would not need 5th gen a/c in near future is only valid till China does not develop its own 5th gen fighter. This, IMO, is a huge assumption to make. Through its tactics of beg, borrow and steal (minus beg, that is the Porki way ) means, China has already mastered all the aspects of a 4.5 gen fighter. So what is stopping them from starting a 5th gen fighter program? I will not be surprised if while we are discussing AMCA, they have already started a 5th gen program. If this happens, then will our PAK-FA suffice? PAK-FA, after all would cost at least $100 million. How many squadrons do you think we would be able to have of them?
But all these arguments are zilch considering that we do not have the capability to develop a 5th gen fighter. So, what should we do? Develop a 4.5 gen fighter and be satisfied as you suggest? I humbly beg to differ. I "hope" that we take full advantage of PAK-FA program and not just give off money to the program. I hope that through PAK-FA, we would acquire tech which we lack in (mainly radar, engine and s-duct). If we do that, then what can stop us from from developing a 5th gen a/c? But I have a sneaking feeling that either we would screw this opportunity or/and the Russians would screw us. Even if that happens, we cannot afford to just sit in dismay. IMO, Sweden and India have huge opportunity in this case to united their resources and develop a 5th gen a/c.

[shiv]

My contention is NOT that our neighborhood does not have 5 gen. Nowhere have I said that. In fact our neighbors may benefit more from some 5 gen things like supercruise. And they are sure to get 5 gen - perhaps as gift or may purchase it.

My contention has consistently been that
1) We must build based on our capability. We lack the capability to build 5 gen. We can build 4th gen and perhaps 4.5. Stick to that till we develop in house capability. And build in huge numbers.
2) We need to build capability to defeat 5 gen because our neighbours will use it against us. It is a naive myth to imagine that you may need supercruise to defeat supercruise or stealth to defeat stealth. If anyone harbors such thoughts they need to be disabused of them. You don't need F-16 to beat F-16, You need R-77.

[Carl_T]

It is a naive myth to imagine that you may need supercruise to defeat supercruise or stealth to defeat stealth. If anyone harbors such thoughts they need to be disabused of them. You don't need F-16 to beat F-16, You need R-77.

I think the same US that has stealth and supercruise has been worrying about this very point - whether countries with less means can defeat stealth fighters with things like the S-300.

[shiv]

It is a naive myth to imagine that you may need supercruise to defeat supercruise or stealth to defeat stealth. If anyone harbors such thoughts they need to be disabused of them. You don't need F-16 to beat F-16, You need R-77.

I think the same US that has stealth and supercruise has been worrying about this very point - whether countries with less means can defeat stealth fighters with things like the S-300.

Dead right!!

The US deals with this by using satellite and UAV recce and destruction of air defences by cruise missiles and night attacks using otherwise unprotected stealth fighters using PGMs guided by UAVs and AWACS and satellite nav.

So if we want to do a US copycat, having stealth and supercruise is not enough. We have to become US and have all their tech and resources.

In the absence of the ability to do that we have to be innovative and use OUR brains rather than use US ideas. If you can innovatively defeat 5th gen, you have your own "no gen" idea to neutralise 5th gen.

[Kailash]

And we still have Indians of my children's generation slobbering after glossies of phoren goodies. Looking, as i did, with "wonder and awe" at how the US's requirements are being met. And believing that this is the way India must go. That is what two earlier generations did, and look where we are? What will today's generation see in 50 years? IMO they are likely to see more of same.

IMHO, a ban of sale of ALL high tech goods, isolation and sanctions would probably be the only necessities that trigger rapid indigenization (like it happened with China). Get the technology, the scientist, the infrastructure by *any* means necessary.

The Indian system is too easy for the west to manipulate - throw them a few high tech gadgets and keep the local research at bay. Or bribe the key officials who draft the requirements or evaluate and select a weapon system. We need a change in mindset, should ask the right questions - why is a product not available within the country - where do we lack? how can i integrate local R&D, higher education and private companies? what are the gaps between our Technology and Engineering? how do I reduce dependence on a foreign country over next 50 yrs?

[Juggi G]

Rolls-Royce Expands Partnerships In India
Avaition Week

[Juggi G]

Thales Wins Work On MiG-29 Upgrade
Avaition Week

[Manish_Sharma]

And a 90% phoren equipped IAF. In 2010 we are seeing a great Indian fighter (LCA) , and a trainer (Sitara). And no engine. And a 90% phoren equipped IAF. The only thing that we have done in between is get older, have more babies and create more grandparents.

Thanks for writing on this issue with such clarity. It dawns on me that even with 90% of phoren parts IA/IAF is having difficulty in making LCA/Arjun the backbone of their force. I also feel guilty of having been carried off by the idea of 5th gen AMCA. While we can see even US is not able to obtain F22 in large numbers and having tech problems in developing f 35.

[atreya]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... money.html

This gentleman feels he is more knowledgeable than our MoD and Air Staff! Apparently, the Mirage upgrade is useless and we should buy more Su-30s as they cost the same!!
Next, he may be suggesting that we buy hundreds of prop-driven aircraft as they are cheap and our hi-tech jet aircraft cost a bomb and one can get a bunch of the former in the same cost as one unit of the latter!!

[D Roy]

5.8 billion. Hah! hahaah!

That's almost half the MRCA contract. Yippeee kiyeah - my hawai sena is "kapabhility" based and not "threat" oriented onlee.

Anyone for interoperability?

And somebody was saying we don't need supercruise? Oh yeah..

[Austin]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... money.html

This gentleman feels he is more knowledgeable than our MoD and Air Staff! Apparently, the Mirage upgrade is useless and we should buy more Su-30s as they cost the same!!
Next, he may be suggesting that we buy hundreds of prop-driven aircraft as they are cheap and our hi-tech jet aircraft cost a bomb and one can get a bunch of the former in the same cost as one unit of the latter!!

That Gentleman knows much more on the good , bad and evil side of defence deal then you kids will ever know

[Bala Vignesh]

It is a naive myth to imagine that you may need supercruise to defeat supercruise or stealth to defeat stealth. If anyone harbors such thoughts they need to be disabused of them. You don't need F-16 to beat F-16, You need R-77.

I think the same US that has stealth and supercruise has been worrying about this very point - whether countries with less means can defeat stealth fighters with things like the S-300.

Incidentaly, didn't a nighthawk get shot by a SAM in the serbian war in 1999??
Forgot how it got shot though...

[David Siegel]

Israeli air force may train in india for long-range training

http://idrw.org/?p=1453

[shiv]

Cross post - reply to OT post in LCA thread

Right now we need to start funding development of UCAV technologies. The F-35 is the last manned fighter that will be developed by the US and it will be in service for 2-3 decades.

With respect Ronyji - don't you think this is something you are suggesting as "necessary" for us because the US is doing it, despite the fact that we do not yet have the capability while the US is already using Reaper-djinns in Bakistan? This is exactly the problem that i have been talking about in this thread.

Surely we must be looking at the ability to shoot down F-35s and UCAVs if we want to make any difference to our clout in the world. Go where others may not be going, rather than following the leader and letting him lead every time. He leads where it is easy for him. We should start a lead in areas which make it difficult for the leader. The leader is, after all, free to supply anyone, including our enemies, and by following him we will always be behind what our foes get. We need to neutralise the lead of the leader by going into other areas. Think out of box. Don't stay in the "America did this, so we must do it" box

[Dmurphy]

don't you think this is something you are suggesting as "necessary" for us because the US is doing it, despite the fact that we do not yet have the capability while the US is already using Reaper-djinns in Bakistan?

Shiv, me thinks Rony is right. This is no "I got there first" race. Rather than getting on the defensive about "following the americans" why can't we look at what we gain by having UCAVs instead of manned fighters. UCAVs can help transcend the limitations of a human body for starters. If superseeding the Americans is that critical, we can always strive hard and make a UCAV better than theirs and then claim to the "leader".

To put things into perspective: What if tomorrow the americans come up with a novel technology that makes soldiers invulnerable in the battlefield? Would you still turn away from that technology and swear not to use it here, just because they got there first?

In our quest to be the first, lets not miss the wood for the trees.

[Carl_T]

Dead right!!

The US deals with this by using satellite and UAV recce and destruction of air defences by cruise missiles and night attacks using otherwise unprotected stealth fighters using PGMs guided by UAVs and AWACS and satellite nav.

So if we want to do a US copycat, having stealth and supercruise is not enough. We have to become US and have all their tech and resources.

In the absence of the ability to do that we have to be innovative and use OUR brains rather than use US ideas. If you can innovatively defeat 5th gen, you have your own "no gen" idea to neutralise 5th gen.

I can see how defeating stealth planes would be a problem in an air-to-air scenario, but considering how expensive stealth fighters have been for the world's richest military it may not end up being a realistic threat for a long time. But outside of that in defensive cases maybe stealth and supercruise is not that important as the "home" side is at a big advantage, and when "attacking" there are a number of other options like you stated.

In that vein do you think it is necessary to continue with the MCA? I feel it might be redundant with the Pakfa coming. I think we should focus on two things: developing capability in unmanned systems and developing technologies that can be used to upgrade Tejas, which might be useful if we decide to say make a stealthier version of the plane or say turn it into a UAV (if that is realistic) etc.

[sawant]

Israeli air force may train in india for long-range training

http://idrw.org/?p=1453

i kinda wish some of their ammo lands in TSP... and shud be indistinguishable frm the Khans...

[RSoami]

No harm in copying ideas (or anything) as long as they are in the right direction.The manless plane is an idea in the right direction so we can work on that...Only that we need not get limited by it and continue with our own independent thinking in the same or other fields too.
I think manless plane is not a great example in this case..
my 2 paise

[sunilpatel]

Cross post - reply to OT post in LCA thread
don't you think this is something you are suggesting as "necessary" for us because the US is doing it, despite the fact that we do not yet have the capability

Dear shivji,
it even not necessary that...we should not do it because US is doing...
any way...unmanned aircraft is that technology we will need...cause s-300, 400, x00 are for defence, not for the attack...and i dont think...we always need to be a defensive force..strategically, we need both kinds of Hathiyars...isn't it? so, IMO both are required...

And there is nothing wrong in following Amarikhans, in view of developing technologies...we have to believe that..they are leading...... we should definately research for new technologies....

[shiv]

dmurphyji we lose nothing and we have everything to gain by developing UCAVs. But we need to develop them using our resources, in our time and within our technical capability and have no link between that and the US. My objection is peoples penchant to close their minds to all thoughts until they come from the US.

You have done that too in creating the strawman of 'invincible US soldier'. Pakistan has already invented the invincible jihadi soldier like the Chinese and Viet Cong before them. I am talking of the abilty to fight on even after losing 2 million men. Now that is a nation with invincible soldiers but people will not accept a working idea unless it is endorsed by the US.

[Singha]

we already have UCAVs like harpy and harop.

out future UCAV will be Nirbhay GLCM and most useful it will be.

loitering stealth UCAV with A2A capability is still out of bounds even for sher khan.

[shiv]

And there is nothing wrong in following Amarikhans, in view of developing technologies...we have to believe that..they are leading...... we should definately research for new technologies....

No. This is what I am trying to say. There is something seriously wrong with following the Americans because it is "following" by definition, If you follow you will never lead.

America leads because it sets the pace using technologies that it already has. Others who follow will always be behind because they have to get the technology first and them make the hardware, while the US moves on. This is not the route to leadership. This is the route of permanent ghulaami and dependence. Indians don't seem to have figured out that yet. Russia and China have understood that they need not copy the US. All they need to do to keep the US on its toes is to manage to defeat US advances by some method.

As a simple example - One F 35 versus 20 JF 17s, or J 10. Several batteries of S 300 versus a few F-35s. Someone wants to make an individual soldier invincible - which is something I have heard from the US, Other nations have made armies invincible by not bothering about the soldiers but keeping on producing more and more soldiers. Batteries/ships full of of missiles instead of an aircraft carrier. All these are examples of thinking that is not weighed down by the idea that what the US does is the best, which is a very Indian belief that is visible to me all over these forums. So when we copy the US we want to make hardware with all the capabilities that the US hardware has because all we want to do is copy. And we cannot do that fully and we are forever trying to play catch up. There are other ways. We can learn from Russia and China. But we are a nation of followers. Followers of the Anglosphere, of which America is boss. Macaulay at work?

[Dmurphy]

You have done that too in creating the strawman of 'invincible US soldier'.

Have I? I was just giving a hypothetical example to explain how useful and 'unignorable' an invention could be, regardless of who invented it. Period.

While I agree with your idea of developing unqiue technologies beyond the reach of any other nation, "following" the american way in developing a loitering UCAV seems a wothwhile effort. In fact I remember ADE officials thinking loudly about developing an unmanned Tejas in near future.

Pakistan has already invented the invincible jihadi soldier like the Chinese and Viet Cong before them.

Well, technically the Viet Cong did it first. So Pak is just about "following" them and hence not inventing them. They don't deserve the credit meant for "inventors"