From an engineering complexity POV, that's actually a good thing. Naval fighter requirements are always more stringent than Air force versions. Why not tackle the bigger problem first?
Yes & who's going to tell that to the IAF. Ideally while the IAF is busy in realising the 5th Gen program they ought to take a backseat to the IN while the latter takes the lead in the 6th Gen FA program . You think they will ?
Requires somebody with iron will as the Raksha Mantri to lay down the line. You think Rajnath Singh has it in him assuming we tie up with France for the FCAS ?
Yes, prioritizing a naval fighter would mean that the FCAS would likely be a medium size/weight fighter. If the AF version of the FCAS is to replace the Su-30MKI it would probably not be a one-to-one replacement in terms of range &/or payload capacity. This range/payload disadvantage would have to be offset with the use of stealthy wingman/re-fueling drones & other non-stealth fighters.
The FCAS as a medium weight class makes sense if we go in for the Su-57 in huge nos . Otherwise endurance & long range seems to be the name of the game as far as 6th Gen goes.
The Chinese & the countries participating in the GCAP are going down that way. The US isn't. Then again if our 6th Gen is going to feature a TEDBF , we'd have to opt for a medium weight FA.
All this needs to be studied thoroughly before we arrive at a conclusion.
We know the IN wants a 65-70,000-ton carrier after that. BAE systems had offered a variant of the QE-class & the DNCS/Naval Group had offered a GT powered variant of the CdG class carrier.
CdG is essentially the same size as the Vikrant & the QE-class is essentially a larger Vikrant in terms of features. At least the CdG has catapults. IN/DRDO has been working on EMALS catapults. They would want their next carrier class to have those.
The PANG would fit in well with IN's requirements for the IAC-3. The problem is the propulsion setup. If we go for nuclear propulsion, we will need 2 units of the CLWR-B2, that reactor was designed for submarines & not surface ships. If we go for conventional propulsion, we will need QE's IEP setup. Either choice comes with problems.
As far as commonality for the FACS program goes, we need commonality on lift sizes. That shouldn't be too difficult.
If our 6th gen program must be a JV, then France should get a preference. Their history with us should give them a leg up.
Sure, we haven't run any joint fighter programs with the French. But we have run many other aerospace programs with them. How many helicopters in Indian military service use French engines? Easily 500+ helos, 900+ engines. Can't be easy managing spares, services, consumables etc. for a fleet this size. Yet you never hear about these engines here.
One can argue that you don't hear any complaints about these engines because many are manufactured in India. But isn't that what they are offering under FCAS?
Taking a holistic view of the situation I'd say if we go by your logic we're merely trading dependencies from Russia with France.
We signed the Rafale at a time when there's actually little need for it . It should have been done latest by 2020. In another decade we'd have the Mk-2 in service which replicates most of what Rafale brings to the table.
Assuming that isn't the case we also have the AMCA Mk-1 which could double up in a non stealth avatar to do what we wanted of the Rafale. That too is coming next decade.
We signed up for the Rafale partly coz like the IN has a bee in its bonnet about collaboration with a F-OEM for the Project 75 I , the IAF has one for the Rafale. That & quite obviously the French may have laid down the ground rule if we need the JV for the 120 KN TF we would have to award the MMRCA tender to Dassault Aviation & here we are .
Now look at the dependencies created . Apart from the ones in hptrs , it's the power plant for our 5th Gen FA program , possible derivatives , the ~ 200 nos Rafales for the IAF + IN & in addition you want us to tie up with them not only for the 6th Gen platform but also the IAC -3 ?
I foresee a strong lobby in our security establishment opposing this line of thought. That's precisely what we have been seeking to escape from the Russians right since the 1980s .
Not to mention the US & Russia will activate their lobbies within our establishment to oppose such a move. Truth be told even I'm not comfortable with such crippling dependencies.
To take a leaf out of our own history - that's precisely the reason IG signed up with the French for the Mirage 2000 & approached the US for the technical collaboration for the LCA program resulting in us getting the F-404 as the prospective power plant for the LCA besides seeking their aid in development of the LCA . That's how the DRDO / CLAW came to CALSPAN to study & develop the FCL .
Inthe light of all this what I've proposed earlier seems to be the safest option vis a vis the 6th Gen program.
I would be willing to buy this line if we had managed to solve our TF related woes. The way GoI has managed the Kaveri program & the question of acquiring a flying testbed doesn't fill me with hope.
We're coming out of this largely self created mess. Hopefully this JV gives us what we need vis a vis the tech & testing infrastructure to fully realise the Kaveri into an analogue for the F-404 & hopefully using the same core to develop an analogue for the F-414 .
Arguably if we set our minds to developing the Flight Test Bed & HATF 2 decades ago & if not that in MP's tenure we'd have been on the cusp of realising it today.
Anyway better late than never.
If the AMCA's induction timeline gets delayed enough we could be a 15 trillion-dollar economy before it enters service. Not really something to brag about.
How certain are we that the present induction timeline (2035) is solid?
Leaving aside the AMCA we must under no circumstances delay the launching of the project for the 6th Gen platform beyond 2030 for which conceptual studies must commence this year .
Simultaneously we need to look into the option of collaboration viz - whether we ought to do down the route of a FULL JV or opt for consultancy in select areas or a JV limited only to critical areas like what I proposed.
. The negotiations are already "unofficially" going on because we want to domestically manufacture the 2-seat Su-57 variant in 100+ numbers. Otherwise why both HAL & UAC would waste each others time. They also have backing right from each country's respective top
