Before starting an argument, are you talking about AMCA Mk 1 or Mk2 here?
Doesn't matter. The point I was making is specific to some posters who prefer living in denial than reality, not meant for general discussion.
The KM-SAM, L-SAM, Hyunmoo-3, Cheonryong, Brahmos copy etc. don't count as imports; Patriots, AAMs, Taurus etc. do. There is a distinction.
You are talking about the complete system. I am not. It doesn't change much from R&D PoV, since the Koreans are yet to create new competencies in designing missiles for SAMs and CMs. A JV is done when a country lacks the technology after all.
Well, probably not. TEDBF may be more comparable to KF-21 Block1 but ig it'll be inferior to the Block2. Not to mention, TEDBF will be inducted by 2032 (that's the schedule and we don't have a great record with schedules), while KF-21 Block2 will probably end production by 2032 (40 Block1 by 2028, 80 Block2 by 2032).
In terms of flying sophistication, we have LCA Mk2 < KF-21 Block 1/2 < TEDBF. In terms of avionics sophistication, all three are likely similar, LCA Mk2 is likely similar to Block 1 and TEDBF could be similar to Block 2. In fact you can say that whatever the Koreans are trying to accomplish in terms of avionics for B1, we have already achieved it. In terms of engine sophistication, all three are the same.
AMCA is next gen compared to all three. Our goal is different. The Koreans are working on their aircraft to complement the F-35 in a hi-lo mix. We want to make our jet superior to the F-35.
In the interim measure, the Koreans are developing tech required to make a future KF-21 Block3 i.e. their F-35 equivalent (not official except for a few comments by KAI officials). So, should they go for a Block 3, they'll have their AMCA Mk1 analogue not too behind AMCA. Now, this is all speculation, so take it as you will.
That's the plan, but they don't have it, they lack the design experience at this point.
First about scramjets -
1.
they had tested components of scramjet in 2008 -
and
2.
their Hycore prototype uses a scramjet engine -
According to DongaIlbo and BizHankook, Hycore uses a cramjet and its maiden test is scheduled for this year. So, if the 2 newspapers are to be trusted, given that they will test their missile this year itself and that they have been dabbling in that tech since 2008, its probably safe to assume that they have a functional scramjet engine.
Now, ChosunIlbo cites some sources corroborating that Hycore has a scramjet engine, while some other sources say that Hycore is gonna use a dual mode ramjet or double ramjet (got lost in google translate). So, by this year, we'll probably know about that.
All "major" aerospace powers have scramjet programs and all have showed off models, 'cause it's the next big thing. The difference is whether they have actually tested it or not. That's the difference between haves and have-nots. Once they achieve it, that's when it counts.
The next step is figuring out how much of it is imported, if any, or if there is a foreign partner involved. There's no point if materials come from outside Korea. You either make it on your own, or bust.
Now coming to drones, as I've said earlier, both India and Korea have comparable systems. But they have built a prototype for their KUS-FC called the KAORI-X and have flown it (apparently to validate control algorithms), while SWIFT is in taxi trials. So you can probably say, this is one of the things that fly that we aren't a gen. ahead.
They managed to fly a TD, but they don't have a weapons program yet, like we do. It makes a huge difference. The SWIFT TD is part of a weapons program.
It's the same with KF-21 and AMCA. They did not go for a F-35 equivalent design because they do not have the capability to make one. Hence the need to go for iterative improvements based on a 4.5th gen design. The Koreans are today where we were back in 2005. AMCA was originally no different than the KF-21 Block 2 back then. AMCA later transitioned from "equal-to-F-35" in 2010 to a "superior-to-F-35" design in 2015.
At this time, they are working on stealth tech, which they plan to complete in 2025, post which they can apply what they learnt in weapons systems. So they are doing by 2025, what we achieved in 2010-12. Plus they are doing it with a lot of outside help.
Finally, it isn't about inferiority complex. For some people like me (and I dunno abt you, but I'm relatively young and thus, new in this), watching them go from not having a half decent green water navy to building one of the largest naval forces would have that effect. Like, they didn't have a proper submarine until 1993. Now, they're building some of the best conventional submarines and in good numbers no less. They didn't have a destroyer until 1998; they'll have 18 (6 KDX2, 6 KDX3, 6 KDDX) of those by 2030s. Meanwhile, we don't have an indigenous sub yet. We haven't been able to build a decent indigenous tank (Arjun is a bad design) or an IFV yet; they have the full spectrum of armoured vehicles in their domestic portfolio.
Now, these aren't related to "everything that flies", but these do lead to questions. That isn't inferiority complex (imho, with exams and academics etc. a new entrant in this not knowing everything and thus questioning is not that shocking). I mean, questioning and getting to know things is better than pretending to be a king ...... with no clothes. So, it may be better if you didn't make blanket statements abt the "ridiculous amounts of inferiority complex some members have".
My post wasn't targeted towards you.
Anyway, my post was in reference to stuff that flies, not tanks, ships, subs etc. So, missiles, fighters, helicopters, aeroengines etc. We are a generation ahead compared to Korea in this area today.