With the Su-25 despite the airframe many users might face situations which demand a R-77 or a AShM capability, C-17 is expensive however the plane has proved to be very important for Many AFs looking for a specific capability that no other plane can provide.

The Arguments given here make LCA Tejas an over ambitious project, not an over engineered one.

However the LCA Tejas is an ‘overengineered’ project, they have taken more steps to ensure the integrity of the airframe than were necessary, the head of ADA came out with that statement, and that has caused some of the weight issues.

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20090206_lca_programme.html

I agree it was over ambitious, however considering your views I would say it was both over ambitious and over engineered. Over ambitious interms of aircraft stability, home grown radar, engine etc over engineered in terms of safety factors in structure, structural health monitoring (depending on how its done it may reduce the structural strength in laminates, but depending on how its done).

For an aircraft that was supposed to be a gap filler and a Mig – 21 replacement the team tried too much not keeping in mind ground realities and real term needs of the IAF (i.e. a plane to keep squandron strength and retire the old Migs).

Low Altitude Digital Lakshya-2 Successfully Flight Tested

(Source: India Press Information Bureau; issued Dec. 21, 2010)

The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) yesterday successfully conducted the flight test of Lakshya-2, the Pilot-less Target Aircraft (PTA), at very low altitudes.

The users have indicated their requirement of flying the PTA at 15 to 25 metres above sea level to simulate trajectory of low-level cruise missiles. Accordingly Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), Bangalore prepared Lakshya-2 with necessary hardware and software for meeting the user requirements.

The flight test was of 32 minutes duration controlled by Ground Control Station and the low altitude flight was proved over 10km range. The flight was stable and well controlled. Mobile launcher to launch the PTA from anywhere and GPS to locate for recovery were used successfully.

The pilot-less aircraft also demonstrated its manoeuvring capability simultaneously simulating manoeuvring attacking aircrafts. The system has been designed so that two Lakshya targets can be flown and controlled by the Common Ground Control Station.

-ends-

Modification to lakshya

let the marines do a reverse takeover, incorporating the bulk of their ground troops into the army as army marine divisions (& called that).

You could do a resource swap or gap year or two where the marines airforce and army change leadership. Or where the leadership is circulated between the different arms of the services. So that Airforce knows army requirements, and so on and so forth.

I dont see the issue of the AESA RADAR or its technology to be specific a big issue, India has the chance to buy an Israeli AESA radar for the LCA and it has now just signed a contract with Sukhoi to develop a Fifth gen aircraft and there is also talk of future upgrades of the Su-30MKI containing Russian AESA radars…Also would SALEX not sell an AESA radar to India if it needed one?

So I really do not see the need to spend an arm an a leg on the MMRCA for an AESA radar. Considering the MMRCA (technologically) will be a stop gap until the FGFA comes into service and the LCA MK2 is fly it makes very little sense to buy an expensive aircraft.

Spend as little as you can and use the money that you saved for the AMCA program.

The Tejas can fly longer, but it currently doesn’t yet have the OBOGS fitted on. This will be done sometime next year since the OBOGS was certified only recently.

Without an OBOGS, the fighter needs to carry onboard liquid oxygen for the pilot and his g-suit pressurisation and this puts a limit on the fighter’s endurrance. For longer duration sorties, more cylinders are needed, and if OBOGS was meant to be used, then they would make no special arrangements to add additional cylinders for longer duration sorties.

It has nothing to do with anything else. With 2 external 1200 litre drop tanks and 2400 litres of internal fuel, it can easily fly for more than double the duration currently quoted.

and how much weapons load will it be able to carry with the external fuel tanks?

Please, India for example wants to gain access to the most Advance Fighter Techonlogy Available. Plus, a very mature Platform! All in addition to pure performance……..So, you have to look at every aspect.

Also, as long as you bring up purely technical evaluations. The Typhoon while a very good Air Superiority Fighter. It’s not nearly as capable nor as mature as some of the other MMRCA Contenders. Especially, in the Strike Role. Which, is a major requirement.

For the very reason that the IAF want a technologically advanced fighter aircraft India should pick either the Gripen NG or Eurofighter Typhoon..

That is what the UK is doing. :dev2: But seriously what a stupid post. No one is saying to disband the military. The Marine Corps is a redundant service and the USA military would LOSE nothing if the service was disbanded. I know the Corps has a long and strong history with the USA but it is a redundant service and should be disbanded IMO to save money.

Reducing the US armed forces to face only real term existential threats would not be a bad than for the US itself.

On the flip side if require you could always build your marine corps back up in time of war if required as long as you keep some numbers in existance to keep the roots and culture alive…

Reducing the corps size may also help the military leaders shape the work ethic to how they feel it should be a purge of old customs or practises that they do not think contribute to an efficient marine corps.