Mrinal wrote:Yes, the contrast is glaring because the SAAB folks dont have to suffer sanctions, have the best of both worlds, Europe and the US, and enjoy the support of a local AF, which unlike the IAF, is a risk taker and actively participates in development (eg Meteor) with the attendant push for export sales.
So, ADA folks suffer sanctions, then why go in that direction in the first place? And then again later despite said sanctions, and even now. IIRC, Dassault was doing well enough. The SWAF might be more proactive when it comes to indigenous programs, but it could very well be said that unlike ADA/DRDO, SAAB was not promising the concerned AF the moon when its actual capability at the time was at best, mount everest.
Those technocrats who hijacked the LCA included several from the IAF itself, who as recent as 2006-8, made more demands of the LCA because of which its weight rose.
Can't expect the requirements to stay the same if the product to be delivered is 15 years late.
What IAF folks were in critical decision making positions on this project early on? IIRC, the Wollen article points out that the oversee committee was headed at all levels either by technocrats or bureaucrats, the IAF seems to have been left out of key positions. IIRC, the IAF did gripe about what it thought was too risky (impractical) project design from the very get go.The Rajkumar article too points out that the AF was not too happy about going for a fully DFBW.If the IAF had such a great say in the matter, one'd think that it would have completely directed the development phase as per its needs.
Btw, this brings me to another question - was it the IAF's new requirements that made the engine inadequate or was the aircraft suffering from a lack of power in the first place (at the Arakonnam Trials)? Where and when did the scope creep begin?
The Gripen is full of American and European (non Swedish) items sourced from OEMs who specialize in these items. It makes sense from both the economic and technology point of view for SAAB. In contrast, do the LCA team have this luxury, with their mandate to source ~70% parts locally?
Whose mandate was this? The IAF's? Btw, it is supposed to be an India made fighter so a LOT of the components will come locally. However, critical components still are sourced from abroad as we all know. There seems to be no problem here. Anyways, this is besides the point.
It will always be easier, more convenient to buy a weapons systems off the shelf. Whether it manages in wartime is a different question, with a host of nations quick to point the sanctions trigger (see the recent fracas over the Canadian claims over BSF etc and then consider what will happen in a real war when "war crimes" etc are alleged, never mind the tendency of many to pontificate about arms control).
Trust me, I am not in favor of buying the swedish/US birds precisely for the above reasons.
The Chinese understood the game early on, and persevered with the J-10 program or whatever it is called. The first fighter, by several accounts is not anything great, and compares best to a mid market Russian fighter. The Chinese ordered some 150-200 of them. Not caring where the radar, engines, systems were from. And now they are working on a B version.
Yes the Chinese were indeed very smart, they went to a trustworthy source that offered somewhat non-uber tech and were satisfied with what they got. The approach is dramatically different than the one chosen by DRDO/ADA, which repeatedly sought to make a technological wonder in the LCA, and thereby ignored overtures from more trustworthy sources in favor of the USA. Thus, the "smallest, lightest, brightest, smartest" slogan I s'pose. That such a strategy would cause terrible delays affecting the operational readiness of the concerned customer seems to be lost in this headlong pursuit of technology. Not to mention the sand castle offered to the public in the form of the Kaveri.
If India continues to have a fascination for fancy imported toys without understanding the product development process, it will never amount to anything worthwhile. Those local developers who are currently persevering, will eventually switch their allegiances to the umpteen labor arbitrage set ups being started in India, under industrial cooperation programs.
Conversely, if India continues to have fascination for the most wunderbar technology that pops up in the next issue of pop science, I am afraid that its ambitions for "world power" status would be best replaced by "push over" status. Ya, the AFs have a penchant for phoren goods, but it would be hard to fight a war with pure "pies in the skies". Anyway, the viewpoint expressed by VK Saraswat seems to incorporate what you are trying to say, at the same time the forces too have a very reasonable gripe. Esp. in the case of the LCA, where the customer was more concerned with a practical, risk free solution, delivered on time rather than a world beating, pioneering jet delivered 2 decades later.
Product cycle development is all fine and dandy, but product developers would do well to deliver on time and take into consideration what customers want.
ON this note, another question - what is with the engine choice for example? The need for a newer engine was established 2 years ago, still the dithering continues.
CM.
what an !dea sirjee!