"We will make it in India"... isn't that what caused Tejas to be dragging since 2004 or 05?
MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Picdelamirand-oil
- Start date
In terms of avionics, they will have the latest available in time. LCA Mk1A and M2000 will stay within their niche areas. MKI MLU and second Mig-29UPG upgrade will see Mk2/AMCA avionics, so both will be more advanced than KF-21.
Development using own IP takes time.
Unfortunately forces can not fight with IP. They need weapons.
Indian avionics are couple of generations behind the state of the art. Indian antenna design in its TRMs limit bandwidth of its radar significantly. So does its choice of power electronics and switching electronics. Like always, Indian military products are outdated before they are introduced.
For all the boasting, even a single fire control airborne radar for fighters, of Indian origin is not deployed anywhere. Plan for replacement of radar in Su30 MKIs is slow and will not be complete for 15 or so years.
That I agree with. It's not the forces' fault that their imports are being delayed. Their development programs are proceeding smoothly. Their imports are awaiting either govt progress or just tech availability. But the new MRFA is just 2 years late, so it's not much.
What we have developed is all cutting edge. Our antenna developments are following current Western timelines.
The frame of a jet is the easiest part of the whole. Rafale A was built in 4 years.
An engine from scratch takes at least 10 years, as a radar and an electronic support system. It was the time for engine and radar of Mirage 2000 and Rafale.
The KF-21 is only new by its frame, so takes less time.
The main 2 errors of India was to developp a complete modern jet, and among the smallest jet : all is more complex when small...
A quite bigger jet with a off the shelf proven engine would have been a better way. with M53, or Avon or RD33/93.
The only Western engine available in 1985 was the F404 and we made the Kaveri with the same thrust instead of pushing for more. The original RD-33 had lower thrust than F404.
The size of the airframe was fine. The bigger reason was making bulkheads with composites instead of metal which actually contributed to the higher weight.
My man, the comparison is not even between making an aircraft. It is between Making and BUYING one.
India is taking more time in BUYING aircrafts than South Korea making one.
Remember, India's MMRCA date back to early 2000s. South Korea's KF-21 is from 2010 and from the looks of it, South Korea will have more KF-21s flying before India even deciding which MFRA to buy.
This thread dates back to 2018. Its 7 year old and no progress on just BUYING front has been made.
I disagree.
M53-5 was ready in 1980 and used in the first M2000 built (60kN / 90kN)
Avon mk 301 / 302 was integrate in English electric lighting. (56kN / 73kN)
and of course F404.
Avon's not even close to be a good enough replacement for F404. M53 was too big and heavy.
The only real competitors to the F404 were M88 and EJ200. Plus, at the time, our main engine was going to be Kaveri anyway, so even F404 was a stopgap.
F404 became an option for production because of India's relationship reset with the US during the Clinton and Bush administrations in the 2000s.
Had Kaveri been designed for 60/90 kN from the start, we would have accepted a 55/85 kN version in 2004.
The ADA's favorite catchphrase for LCA back in the 1990s was 'smallest, lightest, multirole delta-wing fighter in the world'. But not anymore.
Don't know whe we used to obsessed with smallest when comes to fighter jet.
Crawl, walk, then run; that's the ultimate mantra of success. Rather than trying out an MCA, we did the right thing by cooking up an LCA first.
LCA is not just a plane for us but the genesis of our whole indigenous aero-structure. Its importance can't ever be undermined. Period.
M88 and EJ200 were not ready in 1985.
The result was disappointing.
As a first try (for a modern front line jet) smallest & lightest was too ambitious.
Yep. That's why the only choice was the F404.
Not at all. While smallest and lightest does lead to problems overall, it wasn't so for the LCA.
The first delay was due to not using Dassault's triplex FBW (2 digital and 1 analog channels). Using this would have allowed DRDO to start flight testing. It was their pride and ego that made them waste over a decade developing a quadruplex digital FBW, or LCA would have begun flight testing before 1995, and a proven airframe could have been used to test the new FBW before production.
So LCA became overweight due to the composite bulkhead and landing gear, and the flight testing delay happened due to their stupid FBW decision. Kaveri's failure was due to inexperience rather than design failure.
Anyway Mk1A still remains the smallest.
The IAF for its part wanted a jet that could fit the MiG-21 footprint so that it could use the same infra like HAS. The ADA/DRDO interpreted that to mean smallest, lightest all on its own. In fact, the LCA mk1 is smaller than even the MiG-21 while the empty weight is approx the same.
Cutting leg according to chappal/sandals size. Only indians will think like this.
Lca size is not the issue. The problem is even if it's small it's production still isn't as simple as a Russian flanker or fulcrum. It is complex. We should be able to easily produce 40-60 airframes a year. That's why tejas was designed. To be a quickly built easily maintainable fighter for an attrition war.
Bcoz the LCA was originally conceived as an interceptor deployed at the forward bases, bases which back then were operating the MiG-21. It needed to fit in the MiG-21's hangers, hence the small footprint.
No nation, not even USA or Russia can build fighters so quickly to replenish the fighters/strike aircraft they lost in modern day war whennthey are facing an equally capable enemy during war. When Tejas concept was coined pak & china are equally capable to India on conventional front.
You need two things 1) A cutting edge aircraft so that it wont get shot down in air, & cutting edge defense systems so that enemy cannot strike at your base. 2) A reliable foreign supplier who is willing to spare the platforms.
To be very very honest, Tejas is a minaturized Mirage.
I mean if I have to do this, I will take up M53-5 (full ToT) and work with France to add a FADEC in it. That would have been a better than whatever India is doing with this and that variant of stupid tejas and american engines.
A "modernized" Mirage (which is now what Tejas Mk2 will be) with lots of composites, modern cockpit, AESA radar (imported from Italy), Meteor, M53-5 with FADEC done by 2013 or would have made IAF really happy and would have given all the confidence to ADA to build AMCA.
Over time, india could have introduced its own missiles and radars.
Last edited: