But if its not 50-50 or atleast 80-20 is it worth participating in the project ? Unless you get ToT for everything including engines it is not worth it. They could have easily put the amount spent on the FGFA into the AMCA and gotten a western design partner like SAAB to co-operate in its design. The powerplant would be an issue but that can perhaps be sourced from France.
I think IAF is basically looking at it as a fighter acquisition program and by going the JV route it avoids the long drawn out tendering process like the MRCA which is mandatory under the new Defense Procurement Policies. Any spin offs and design expeirence should be treated as a bonus.
What is more important, maintaining quality advantage over your foes in the short term future or developing a fighter than can cut it with the best of them in the medium term future. Few may argue that the IAF will go for both but I cannot help but think that the AMCA will be given a lower priority than the FGFA by the IAF. For example ACM P.V Naik was quoted saying that what the IAF wants from the MCA project is a good fourth generation mutlrirole aircraft, again suggesting it won’t be considered in the top tier with the FGFA.
Sadly I miss my old friend Abhimanyu, because finally his words on the FGFA are looking very true indeed.
Sign In
