Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[GASOLINE_ON_FIRE]

Corruption can happen at the lower end of the item chain. For example, you can buy special forces tents for 12 Cr and people can pocket 1 Cr. But corruption rarely happens in big ticket deals because of the amount of media scrutiny involved. Also, the govt is hellbent on making defence deals look clean, not to mention the Modi govt has been ridiculously clean anyway. So, if the top brass is corrupt, you can see it happening in cases where political involvement is minor, like the funds that the top brass are allowed to spend without significant civilian involvement.

As for MMRCA, yes, this will be a very long process, but it will be at least 2-3 times faster than bringing TEDBF into service. A signature between 2023 and 2025 would mean the first Indian made MMRCA will become available only after 2028 for any of the contenders except for Rafale. Rafales can come in a year or two earlier.

TEDBF will be ready only around 2032, and service induction can happen around 2035, considering the project starts this year.



That's not going to work out for the IAF. TEDBF is an IN-specific design and changing it to IAF specs will be expensive, time-consuming and the end product may end up being inferior to the naval version. It's because the IAF's working environment is much more challenging than the IN's. Mountains eat away 20-30% of engine power, so the IAF needs extra high performance machines, something that doesn't exist today.

That's why AMCA's TWR is 1.2 at loaded weight. In the exact same configuration, even the presumably high TWR jet like the Typhoon has a TWR of 1.07. So a TEDBF with 100KN engines will be nothing more than a present day Typhoon, which is not enough for the IAF. Also why an aircraft like the F-35 won't be suitable for the IAF due to its ridiculously low TWR.

Also, the IN seems to be less interested in stealth and more interested in other aspects like long range strike, larger payload and higher range/endurance, no different from the USN. The design goals are likely very different compared to waht the IAF needs.

Another important criteria for the IAF is, the aircraft should already be operational. ORCA and TEDBF will obviously not meet the cut. Otherwise, IAF can wait for AMCA Mk1 anyway, it will be ready for induction long before TEDBF, at least by 3 or 4 years, especially considering AMCA is an approved project while TEDBF is still to go through the processing rigmarole. Furthermore, even AMCA Mk1 will have a TWR of 1.1 and hence a higher TWR than the Typhoon. Point being TEDBF will be inferior to even AMCA Mk1 in terms of perfomance, never mind stealth and other features, and will arrive well after it's ready for induction, making the entire process pointless.

The idea behind MMRCA is to acquire a previous generation design but with 5th gen avionics and make it operational as quickly as possible in order to maintain an edge in the region. So it's natural that the IAF's goal is to acquire an existing aircraft. The IAF made an exception for SE MII in favour of an indigenous design because the alternatives are either in development (Gripen E) or are too old (F-16). They are not going to give the same exception to TE MII, since its acquisition is much more critical.



Yep. Been too long and there's been no sound from them. It's probably backfired, making such an unrealistic design, that they do not want to put their name at the bottom lest it hurts their reputation.

One point I would like to make is, why does everyone assume that mk1 of AMCA will come around 2030. Has ADA/HAL given a timeline? Cause even if you look at various 5th gen aircrafts under development around the world. Everyone is taking more than 10 years of developmental cycle for their aircrafts. It would be stupid to assume that it will only take 5 years for ADA to start serial production (assuming 1st prototype comes out in 2025/26). AMCA would not come before 2035 proper (mk1/2/x/y/z doesn't matter). Realistically, if a twin engine non-stealth aricraft were to start developing today, it too will come around 2035 and unless we have foreign countries buying AMCA, expect the per unit cost to be astronomically high. That means we would still need another cheaper aircraft in the same class as of AMCA (for example take a look at LM f22). Thinking of per unit cost of AMCA, why dont we involve south asian countries like nepal, bangladesh, sri lanka or south east asian nations to create a f35 like program? Will that be too unrealistic?

 

[Quicksilver]

Thinking of per unit cost of AMCA, why dont we involve south asian countries like nepal, bangladesh, sri lanka or south east asian nations to create a f35 like program? Will that be too unrealistic?

None of those have the resources (if it's expensive for India, it's more expensive for those countries)
Or the threat perceptions (they won't take on any large adversary directly without help of another ally)

Why would they join?
Myanmar/ bd want to buy cheap jf 17 type aircraft.

If any project, the LCA would have been a better common program. But for that we need to build every sub system (engine, radar et Al) so as to not deal with end user agreement entanglement.

 

[RISING SUN]

Compared to the LCA, the ORCA is nothing more than a basic program.

Jumping from nothing to LCA was massive. Jumping from LCA to MWF to AMCA and then to ORCA is actually a massive downgrade. AMCA is in the demonstration stage while ORCA is only in the design stage.

The LCA was originally a Mirage III. Basic hydraulics controls, a radar with the ability to track just 1 target, so on.
DRDO changed it to a Mirage III with M 2000 tech. Digital FBW, BVR capability, HMS, glass cockpit, HOTAS etc.

So the way LCA evolved since the beginning and through the course of its development is very different from what's been planned for ORCA.

For ORCA, all the basic technologies have more or less been developed through other programs, like the Su-30/Jaguar upgrade and LCA/MWF. The only task now is to build the airframe and flight test it.

But what this shows is India's aerospace capabilities have increased a lot, to the point where we now have Gripen E, Rafale and F-35 programs running in parallel, not counting the LCA. That's pretty much all of US and Europe's ongoing fighter jet programs combined.

So I don't see how this shows a "lack of commitment to its projects."


The problem with Kaveri was the failure to anticipate that the LCA will become overweight. The engine itself is fine.

Except the fact, that all three mentioned jets are in active duty, F35, Gripen and Rafale while our very own ORCA, AMCA and MWF are yet to get the first bolt fixed on the respective jets.

 

[RISING SUN]

AMCA has been divided into two separate programs. One with an inferior engine (which is available now) and the other with a more advanced engine (with a foreign partner).

AMCA's avionics will be 5.5th/6th gen.

For example, Rafale F4 will come with avionics that are more advanced than what's on the F-35. AMCA Mk1 has similar goals as Rafale F4.

Hold onto your statement very tightly mate, AMCA(yours one only) is about to escape earth's gravity!!!

 

[RISING SUN]

The indigenous one is vapourware. Right now, only navy is interested in TEDBF. IAF wants to import a proven aircraft, no development. IAF will be supporting AMCA development instead.



What he means to say is we shouldn't be buying the Su-35.



No, the timeline of induction for both jets are not the same. I think you have misunderstood what I said. MMRCA will get signed between 2023 and 2025. Any Su-57 signature will only happen after 2030, and induction will start well after MMRCA is almost complete.

Su-35 is impossible for IAF. MKI is better. Even the Russians are pouring more money into their MKI. Some Russian fanboys will not agree, but facts are facts.



Su-57 doesn't exist. It will exist only after 2025. ORCA will not exist, it's not even a real design.



MKI costs $55M. Mk1A costs $45M. That's $100M total. And these costs are without maintenance, infrastructure etc.



How does paying for something we do not need lower costs?

There is no truth to what's said in the article. You obviously do not know, but the Russians are forcing the IAF to adopt Russian Su-35 standards for our upgrade program. What the Russians want us to do is cancel MMRCA and buy 126 Su-35 instead. That's also why they are now participating in the MMRCA tender. They just want a bakra to buy their jet, so they are coming up with whatever excuses they can throw at us.

Think logically. The most expensive parts of the MKI upgrade program will be radar and engine. The development of both has already been paid for by Russia, so they will most definitely charge us royalty on it anyway, there's no escaping that. Let's assume each engine will cost us $5M, and all 265 MKIs will get the new engine, this will put the total bill at $2.7B. We only need 2 engines for each jet for the rest of its life. Let's assume the radar costs $3M each, which is $800M. So the total cost is $3.5B. Furthermore, you can be sure all other assorted costs will be about $1.5B for the Russians alone. This should include cost of royalty, ToT, infrastructure, other technologies etc. $5B in total, spread over 20 years. That's $250M a year. Even if you save 10%, that's $225M a year. So you will pay about $10-15B buying 126 Su-35s in order to save $25M a year for the upgrade. Oh, and wait, after 20 years Su-35 has to be upgraded too. So what will you recommend then, buy Su-57, so that Su-35's upgrade is cheaper? And then after that, buy Su-67 to make Su-57's upgrade cheaper? Do you see where your argument is headed towards?

The MKI will be upgraded in batches, probably 50-100 each, and each new batch will carry new technologies. Just like Jaguar DARIN I, II, III etc. So there's no point buying the Su-35 just so the first batch is only a little bit cheaper.

Anyway, we only buy stuff when it makes sense to buy it. We do not buy something just to make something else cheaper. Our bureaucracy has never worked that way. Rather, prices go up when you do something like what you've asked for. It's because we negotiate for things on an individual basis and not the collective.



How does a plane that doesn't exist compare with one that does? Even HAL can't say this statement.



I don't think you know what you're talking about.



Again, Su-57 doesn't exist. Let's talk about it when it actually exists. No, flying a prototype around doesn't mean it exists. It comes into existence when it enters full squadron service. Like how LCA came into existence only in 2018-19. Su-57 will enter full squadron service only sometime after 2023. Right now it's in the same stage as the F-35 was back in 2016.

Also, we can't simply buy Rafale's electronics. Those don't come separate from the aircraft. And no, we won't integrate Su-57 electronics in an Indian designed aircraft either. If ORCA becomes a reality, it will only carry Indian electronics.

Very well constructed argument.

 

[RISING SUN]

Su 35 is a proven aircraft. Until the advent of ORCA Tejas will be a proven aircraft. Since ORCA will share most of the components from AMCA it will be an excellent platform for testing the techs plus it will also help in the development of AMCA.
I agree ORCA is a vapourware right now but so does all the projects in the starting.

No sir he was supporting the acquisition of SU 35 in MMRCA and it was I who has raised some contention. ( yes me!!!).


It doesn't matter. As I have said earlier we should select Su 35 in the meantime. Not that Russians are going to offer the level of TOT required in MMRCA for Su 57 anyways.
But I caution you against sticking to the timeline of 2030. As soon as WS 15 engines will become operational expect an order for SU57 and maybe even before that.

Russia has already bought 132 Su 35s. That is a big number for an ailing economy like Russia. As far as upgrades are concerned every airforce do that. Buying new aircraft doesn't mean that we leave older in their state until their lifespan. Similarly upgrading older doesn't mean that newer is inferior.
In comparison Su 35 has more composite material and more stealthy
(and maneuvarable) design compared to mki and if we combine it with the electronics of SU 57 no aircraft is going to match it including mki.
And it is not the question of superiority instead the question of newer airframe. We are going to need Flankers beyond 2060 but by then the production line of them will long be dead. Hence the need of induction of newer airframe now.

Yeah surely it was some ghost I have seen escorting Russian President or the recent order of 76 piece by Russian airforce is of some racing cars.
Fact is the most of the components of
Su 57 are fully ready like it's avionics suite, Airframe with RAM etc. Only thing that was hindering it from going into full production was its engine. But now that problem is solved too by production 30 engines going into integration phase. By 2021 we will have a very potent aircraft.
Talking about ORCA the design could always be improved. We just need to give it some initial funding. With all required technologies in place it will sure see the light of day within 6 years of the commencement of the project.


Mk 1a costs 34.2 million. And Rafale costs 100 million without maintenance infrastructure etc.
We could get one ORCA and one Su 35 in that cost. You choose which one would be superior one single Rafale or combo of flanker and orca.

We need Su 35. I have already given the reason. In addition to it Chinese are going to field hundreds of heavy fighters in our Northern border. We need an effective counter with good numbers.

And I see no harm in selecting Su 35 for mmrca. As far as excuse is concerned we could easily check wheather buying it is reducing our cost of upgrading mki or not.


Apart from reducing the cost SU 35s has its own utility too described by me earlier. And to be clear I strongly advocate against buying anymore heavy jets from Russia after Su 57. The scenario you have presented could easily be avoided as when we will have full TOT of Su 35 we will be able to easily upgrade them by indigenous systems requiring no Russian help.

I reiterate my statement of other utilities of Su 35 apart from reducing the cost of upgradation of mki. Furthermore buying SU 57 will reduce the cost of upgrading next batches of mki.

And for me buying Su 35 perfectly makes sense. I hope IAF too will think this way.

In the interview given to Vishnu Som ADA chief has talked about high service ceiling and more greater speed. And since it will share it's all other techs from AMCA program my assumption hold ground.


In fact I know. Flankers will easily fly far higher than Rafales in a skirmish hence the BVR advantage of Rafale will reduce to nothing. In fact it will be Flankers who would be able to target Rafales from longer range. And in WVR it is known fact that Flankers can easily crush Rafales. So air superiority rests with Flankers.
Not to mention more powerful radar of flanker can easily pick Rafale from longer distance than Rafale picking the flanker.


Russians have ordered 76 jets. Algeria has also ordered 13 jets. It is perfectly operational if you are willing to compromise on its engine aspect. Even that too is now going to resolve in a year.

I am perfectly fine with Indian electronics.
Coupled with Su 35 it will negate any advantage that rafale has whatsoever wet ORCA.
Your first part doesn't make sense to me.

I had not faced as much headeche as after reading your post mate, genuinely saying. There must be something very strong reason that you're pushing for Russian platforms or ORCA at cost of developing alternative sources for aerospace industry. Su35 is proven aircraft, proven against what? F22, F35, F18, F16, F15, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen? Nothing in real engagement where it should? ORCA will share the components with AMCA? radar, main body, canopy, wheels anything left in physical body? We should select Su35, why because RuAF operates 132 jets(if it already has)? Are we part of Russian federation that whatever they have got, we must fly as well? What's WS15 engine, as far as my memory serves me right, it's Chinese engine and Russian were looking for 117Series engine. We need Su series flankers beyond 2070s, who will fund the huge maintainance cost and upgrades? How much will it cost? Numbers and projections are exaggerated so much that even exaggeration word seems so less!!! Russian platforms are hell to maintain and still prone to high probability of failure & lag in performance post maintenance. Personal opinion of someone who is actually working on these jets, both westerns DN Russian jets daily.

 

[randomradio]

One point I would like to make is, why does everyone assume that mk1 of AMCA will come around 2030. Has ADA/HAL given a timeline? Cause even if you look at various 5th gen aircrafts under development around the world. Everyone is taking more than 10 years of developmental cycle for their aircrafts. It would be stupid to assume that it will only take 5 years for ADA to start serial production (assuming 1st prototype comes out in 2025/26). AMCA would not come before 2035 proper (mk1/2/x/y/z doesn't matter). Realistically, if a twin engine non-stealth aricraft were to start developing today, it too will come around 2035 and unless we have foreign countries buying AMCA, expect the per unit cost to be astronomically high. That means we would still need another cheaper aircraft in the same class as of AMCA (for example take a look at LM f22). Thinking of per unit cost of AMCA, why dont we involve south asian countries like nepal, bangladesh, sri lanka or south east asian nations to create a f35 like program? Will that be too unrealistic?

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...rogramme-gathers-steam-with-new-developments/
In any case, the first AMCA-TD is expected to fly by the fiscal year 2024-25, with the AMCA Mk1 configuration projected to enter series production by 2029-30.

They are keeping things simple when it comes to the airframe and engine. They are not trying to reach for the moon from the get-go. Mk2 is expected closer to 2040 actually.

And we do not really have to worry about exports yet.

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/...rogramme-gathers-steam-with-new-developments/
In any case, the first AMCA-TD is expected to fly by the fiscal year 2024-25, with the AMCA Mk1 configuration projected to enter series production by 2029-30.

They are keeping things simple when it comes to the airframe and engine. They are not trying to reach for the moon from the get-go. Mk2 is expected closer to 2040 actually.

And we do not really have to worry about exports yet.

They should Make AMCA mk1 just as good as Rafale , that is enough

MK 2 can be stealthy , otherwise we can go for PAKFA

 

[Gautam]

 

[randomradio]

Except the fact, that all three mentioned jets are in active duty, F35, Gripen and Rafale while our very own ORCA, AMCA and MWF are yet to get the first bolt fixed on the respective jets.

That's okay. When we started LCA, even modernised versions of the F-16, Gripen and M-2000 were in service before LCA's first flight.

With MWF and ORCA, we will achieve parity with existing tecnologies in Europe before 2030, which is a significant achievement. AMCA will rapidly reduce that gap, including the ones we have with Russia and later America. You can say that whatever comes after AMCA will be on par with the rest of the world, including hopefully engine tech.

 

[randomradio]

They should Make AMCA mk1 just as good as Rafale , that is enough

MK 2 can be stealthy , otherwise we can go for PAKFA

Mk1 is being designed to exceed the capabilities of Rafale. Both Mk1 and Mk2 will be stealthy, both have the same airframe, only the engine and avionics will be different.

 

[_Anonymous_]

That's okay. When we started LCA, even modernised versions of the F-16, Gripen and M-2000 were in service before LCA's first flight.

With MWF and ORCA, we will achieve parity with existing tecnologies in Europe before 2030, which is a significant achievement. AMCA will rapidly reduce that gap, including the ones we have with Russia and later America. You can say that whatever comes after AMCA will be on par with the rest of the world, including hopefully engine tech.

Congratulations. This is the randomradio of old, we all know & recognise. In between you had turned far too realistic for us to digest leading many here to suspect someone had hacked your account. Really relived to see vintage randomradio back in business, though that "hopefully engine technology " Was definitely a dampner. It should have been an assertive statement that we'd definitely achieve & surpass the US too in that field.But you don't see us complaining too much.

 

[RISING SUN]

That's okay. When we started LCA, even modernised versions of the F-16, Gripen and M-2000 were in service before LCA's first flight.

With MWF and ORCA, we will achieve parity with existing tecnologies in Europe before 2030, which is a significant achievement. AMCA will rapidly reduce that gap, including the ones we have with Russia and later America. You can say that whatever comes after AMCA will be on par with the rest of the world, including hopefully engine tech.

And LCA will be joining the force in full numbers when other major operators will be phasing out their F16s, be it USAF or France.

 

[randomradio]

Congratulations. This is the randomradio of old, we all know & recognise. In between you turned far too realistic for us to digest leading many here to suspect someone had hacked your account. Really relived to see vintage randomradio back in business, though that "hopefully engine technology " Was definitely a dampner. But you don't see us complaining too much.

Whatever comes after AMCA will be in the late 2040s, we will most definitely have multiple engine companies in India by then, including an ecosystem for fighter jet engines.

Anyway, my opinions haven't changed. If you want an operational product on par with Europe by 2030, then you need most of the related technology ready as prototypes today. The time lag in between is to build and test those technologies, which is merely the gestation period for your tech to become available after testing in real world conditions, and is as long as 10 years for a fighter jet, and as low as just 2 years for a radar.

Let's say we are living in a hypothetical world where prototyping and testing are not required, then right now, we have the technology in our labs that will allow us to start building a production version of AMCA Mk1 immediately, since the detailed design stage is complete. Point being, you can prototype and test only after you have acquired the technology for it. So, in our labs, we have already caught up with Europe. Meaning, from a scientist's perspective, we are on par with Europe. From the user's perspective, they agree with the scientists, which is why they are allowing the program to proceed, but are more intersted in what happens at the end of testing. From an outsider's perspective, like you and me, we have to wait and watch, since our access to information is limited. So, at times, I give the scientist's perspective, sometime's the user's, sometimes the outsider's, which can get confusing if all one has is only the outsider's perspective.

 

[randomradio]

And LCA will be joining the force in full numbers when other major operators will be phasing out their F16s, be it USAF or France.

That's quite misleading.

Both US and Europe will also be using F-16s, Gripen C/D, Mirage-2000 etc until the late 2040s and even the 2050s. So we have parity in that respect.

Russia, China and the US will continue to induct new 4th gen aircraft for quite sometime.

As for the limitations of LCA Mk1 and 1A in particular, it's fine within the limits of our environment where evne a less sophisticated aircraft like the Mig-21 is deadly. Also, we will have all LCA Mk1As with AESA radars and sensor fusion a few years before the Americans themselves get an equal number of F-16s with similar capability through an MLU program.

Furthermore, similar to our plans of buying MWF and MMRCA, the US is also purchasing new F-15s and SHs.
U.S. Air Force Buying 80 New F-15X Fighter Planes

US Navy orders additional 78 Super Hornets under $4B contract

And considering the ridiculous 10000 hour service life on SH and 20000 hours on the new F-15s, they will outlast our 4th gen jets. LCAs will be long gone by then.

 

[_Anonymous_]

So, at times, I give the scientist's perspective, sometime's the user's, sometimes the outsider's, which can get confusing if all one has is only the outsider's perspective.

Pure Gold. You've outdone all the previous avataars of randomradio. Whoever you are stranger, I like you. Off late the forum turned drab. Thanks for enlivening things up . If only @Sancho were here. Can't expect @Ashwin to play devil's advocate here.

 

[randomradio]

Pure Gold. You've outdone all the previous avataars of randomradio. Whoever you are stranger, I like you. Off late the forum turned drab. Thanks for enlivening things up . If only @Sancho were here. Can't expect @Ashwin to play devil's advocate here.

What I've said is how it works though.

 

[zapper]

Corruption can happen at the lower end of the item chain. For example, you can buy special forces tents for 12 Cr and people can pocket 1 Cr. But corruption rarely happens in big ticket deals because of the amount of media scrutiny involved. Also, the govt is hellbent on making defence deals look clean, not to mention the Modi govt has been ridiculously clean anyway. So, if the top brass is corrupt, you can see it happening in cases where political involvement is minor, like the funds that the top brass are allowed to spend without significant civilian involvement.

Even though NDA's defence procurements are much cleaner that UPA, corruption might happen some or the other way around. They wouldn't possibly gobble up the funds alloted for procurements but would definitely demand kickbacks to favor particular firms. This happened in all big ticket projects where a particular vendor/supplier has been favored because of the kickbacks offered to selection committees. This also happens in western world and defence giants offering sub-contracts to Tier-I/II suppliers. No wonder, the lobbying industry is rampant in capitalist countries

A signature between 2023 and 2025 would mean the first Indian made MMRCA will become available only after 2028 for any of the contenders except for Rafale.

Even if the selection process is started all over again today, it is highly unlikely IAF would even come to a conclusion or sign the deal by 2025 given their flawed procurement process. Given the funds crunch, approvals from various departments, indegenization content, extent of ToT, establish supply chain & Mfg facility are all likely factors to delay this even further. For instance, IAF backed off from FGFA since Russia was unwilling to share some tech or the overall involvement of Indian orgs is lower and insignificant to the price we're paying for development. Americans are historically known for not offering any significant ToT while the same applies for Gripen given it's usage of American components irrespective of the mouth-statements they blabber in media

 

[randomradio]

Even though NDA's defence procurements are much cleaner that UPA, corruption might happen some or the other way around. They wouldn't possibly gobble up the funds alloted for procurements but would definitely demand kickbacks to favor particular firms. This happened in all big ticket projects where a particular vendor/supplier has been favored because of the kickbacks offered to selection committees. This also happens in western world and defence giants offering sub-contracts to Tier-I/II suppliers. No wonder, the lobbying industry is rampant in capitalist countries

The BJP has demonstrated no instances of corruption to date.

Even if the selection process is started all over again today, it is highly unlikely IAF would even come to a conclusion or sign the deal by 2025 given their flawed procurement process. Given the funds crunch, approvals from various departments, indegenization content, extent of ToT, establish supply chain & Mfg facility are all likely factors to delay this even further. For instance, IAF backed off from FGFA since Russia was unwilling to share some tech or the overall involvement of Indian orgs is lower and insignificant to the price we're paying for development. Americans are historically known for not offering any significant ToT while the same applies for Gripen given it's usage of American components irrespective of the mouth-statements they blabber in media

Even with worst of delays, you can expect a signature by 2025. If Rafale is selected, then the first squadron will reach India within 3 years and the Indian production deliveries will begin the year after. So that's 2028 and 2029, which is good enough. Also, you can say that if Rafale wins, the contract negotiatons will be very short since the lead integrator is already available and the only thing left is cost negotiations. Also I believe the IAF will do its best to make sure they finish the shortlist ASAP since they realise they have a small window before elections.

The Americans will disqualify themselves due to the ToT requirements. But the Russians are a dark horse, the Mig-35 deliveries have already begun in Russia.

 

[Quicksilver]

,

. So, in our labs, we have already caught up with Europe. Meaning, from a scientist's perspective, we are on par with Europe. From the user's perspective, they agree with the scientists, which is why they are allowing the program to proceed, but are more intersted in what happens at the end of testing. From an outsider's perspective, like you and me, we have to wait and watch, since our access to information is limited. So, at times, I give the scientist's perspective, sometime's the user's, sometimes the outsider's, which can get confusing if all one has is only the outsider's perspective.

You forgot one little fact.
The labs in Europe and USA aren't sitting idle.
They are churning out 'solutions' as we speak.
They have higher number and better labs with magnitudes of scale higher funding.
They are also starting from a higher base than India.

The heavy optimism you spread often leads to disappointment. Because we start expecting a lot more from our resources and efforts.

It's amazing what we have achieved so far but we are not where near Europe. Heck China is no where near Europe and we are no where near China.
And the gap is increasing as the day progresses.