This article basically has a generic foregone conclusion about Indian MIC that we are bad at Defense program management blah blah. Intro & Conclusion done, now lets fill the middle part with some rubbish and voila, we have an article.
theprint.in/opinion/air-ch…
theprint.in/opinion/air-ch…
I mean how many go beyond even the headline right..? And even if a few manage to read the entire article, how many are actually going to understand nuisances about Aerospace engineering to call out Bullshit on it..? @elmihiro has already pointed out many gems.
Starts with the usual masala - The "flying Coffin", LCA 30-yrs in making, 18-yr to operationalize blah blah. Don't know what is the matrix for operationalization fpt LCA but if F22 is "operationalised" in 2005 as per the author (F22 achieved IOC in 2005, FOC in 2007), full 15 yrs 
after the first fight in 1990, then by the same yardstick LCA achieved IOC in 15yrs from first flight. And FOC in 18yrs, similar to 17yrs of F22. F22 was operationalized on its IOC but LCA is not even after getting FOC..? This is intellectual dishonesty.
Where to start on this one..? Is the author confused in Aircraft's maneuverability and human efforts needed to move its controls..? Otherwise why the example of electronic steering..? If Manoevreability was function of only FBW how would the author explain unmatched
manoeuverability of statically stable non-FBW original MiG-29..? If "light" denoted manoeuvrability, why the Americans went with not-so-light F15 for Air Superiority platform, that too without FBW..? Just too many things wrong here. On top of it, LCA was not "light" because IAF
wanted high manoeuvrability, it was Light because it was meant to replace MiG-21 in the same form factor with A2A as a primary role. The size requirements did play a major role in severely restricting design space for LCA but that has nothing to do with manoeuvrability.
This part is largely correct, but do note that the Author is here criticizing for not having enough growth margin due to lack of space and power (i.e. lack of amrgin on Engine thrust in simple terms). Now keep this point in your mind for a while.
One point, we have come a long
One point, we have come a long
way since the 90s. Today we are very much capable of making all kinds of avionics for LCA given enough funding.
This is just plain, simple wrong. The need for "indigenous" is for strategic autonomy which is an over-arching principle for any country aspiring to make an influential place in the world order. In fact. India received decent amount of help from US, Europe, Russia in LCA program
until 1998 N-tests. Its only in 1998 that the restrictions forced the ADA scientists write LCA's FCS from scratch and put a spanner in almost every aspect of the program. And no, the rationale for system-level ownership has not and will not evaporate even in future.
Apart from US, no other country has true 6th generation tech path visibility. Adding some features like UCAV wingman, optionally manned and some smaller smart weapons to an essentially 5th Gen platform does not make it true 6th gen fighter. More like 5.5G.
What everyone other than US lacks is a visible tech dev path of 6th gen engine to make a proper 6th gen fighter. Only US has it in development as of today.
Assuming India cannot develop add on technologies such as loyal wingman and AI based autopilot and mate it with AMCA in next two decades would be too presumptuous. The European proposals are quite far in the future still and AMCA can definitely catch up with them once its basic
5G airframe is sorted out. Rest of the technology add on does not need radical changes in the airframe from the 5G philosophy. Most of the changes are internal in the electronics.
Now remember than pointer about LCA not having enough growth margin in engine power..? Here the author criticizes ADA for actually keeping margin in available power. 🤪 ADA has already stated that AMCA is designed with 2x90kN engines but they want 110kN class engine to account
for growth and project creep, a "lesson learned from LCA". The exact thing that the author says Indian organizations do not have.
And who exactly is moving away from high maneuvering platform..? US has F22 and Russia has PAKFA, both highly maneuverable 5G fighters for
And who exactly is moving away from high maneuvering platform..? US has F22 and Russia has PAKFA, both highly maneuverable 5G fighters for
air superiority role for decades to come. The awkward-looking Chinese J-20 is not by choice but due to their inability to have a proper powerful and high TWR cutting edge engine. Once the UCAV come they will reinvent the maneuverability. So it's very much here to stay.
Did the emphasize on kinetics stop F22 from essentially kick-starting the BVR rush..?? Are kinetics and the ability to have a long-range kill chain for BVR mutually exclusive..? Either the answer is a big NO or US and Rus are stupid for making F22 and Su-57..!
Which deep NW are we talking about here..? It does not even exist today with IAF in its full glory. They are slowly building it with IACCS and so on. Let alone AMCA, even LCA & other 4G fighters will be integrated into that NW when it's available.
Is there even a point here..? An internal bay which can carry small nos of larger munition can definitely carry a large number of small munition when they are actually available for integration. Duh...Do we have any as of today..??
This one is utter nonsense. Even LCA has treatment done on it for reducing Radar reflection. Work on the confirmal sensor is very much going on. I remember seeing some things related to this in Aero India 2017. The point about Radome is a very generic one.
We have not even seen AMCA's RADAR yet, for all we know, AMCA will have a tilted AESA disc mounted on a rotating platform. It's a no brainer.
The Fighters are made to the ASQR specified by home AF, not to match some other aircraft out there. If IAF is happy about it, thats all
The Fighters are made to the ASQR specified by home AF, not to match some other aircraft out there. If IAF is happy about it, thats all
that matters. Plus without specifying mission profiles it utterly useless to compare dry range/combat radius numbers. As such, as @elmihiro pointed out, the chart is simply light on info. SAAB makes a lot of such "horrendously muddled" claims for their Gripen.
I'm tired now and I will close the thread saying, to me, the malaise in the understanding matters about Fighters is deeper in the Armchair analysts' minds than the one in IAF/DRDO's defense-related thinking.
👇That's the remark of a subject matter expert who is a Test Pilot/accomplished IAF Pilot, after looking at whatever is written in media at one hand & actual AMCA PSQR/design details OTOH. Ur choice on who U want to listen to & what to take at face value.
ACM RK Bhadauria, whose name is used mischievously in the headline himself is a highly decorated IAF pilot and a very experienced Test Pilot. The new Rafales hv serial number as a tribute to him. If one thinks they know better than him and people should take them seriously
they will have to do much better than writing a terribly written article, which even casual aviation enthusiasts can easily take apart literally piece-by-piece.
Here is what another highly experienced Navy Test Pilot has to say -
