One would be extremely interested to learn about something like that. I think India has some holes in our publically known missile development projects like absense of something like Kh-31, WVR AAM, small cruise missile, ARM, guided glide bombs etc

The will and intent is all there!! Only the money for infra & resources (trained manpower in number) is lacking!! Even today!

Even so, with what we have, a lot of stuff is planned for with work underway.

A lot of futuristic plans were made, still relevant, but kept in abeyance because of dearth of resources.

But now they are still relevant and being put in place. The next decade will be very interesting one if proper resources are available for all these plans.

Hi Curious, thanks for your reply!

Actually that exactly was the aim behind my question, if it is just another case of bribery (there were some reports about it in the Spyder SAM deal), or if there are technical reasons to go for the MICA system as the base of Maitri SAM? I have not the technical knowledge, so I hoped somebody here could make a comparison, or put some light in it.
Regarding the ToT, by the fact that the Israelis already have a similar development going on with India, why should they limit ToT in a new one? Wouldn’t that be more an advantage?

There are two things where MBDA will work with DRDO – compact TVC for the missile & the seeker, plus of course they’ll coordinate in overall design & testing. The rest will mostly be DRDO’s – including the crucial search radars, the Firecontrol, C4I.

This is a triservice missile unlike the SpyDer, so MBDA’s greater experience (Naval Mica F&F, and the Aster 15 – where MBDA is the primary partner) was definitely a determiner.

The Maitri will be a VL system able to handle multiple attacks.

DRDO and other state-run firms have had a monopoly in defense R&D and production for ages. The government favour this as well. I think as long as this continues we will see the same issues in future products.

Some like Teer may rightly argue that private firms are not much better and that they do not have the capability. I think they will acquire it much faster than any DPSU can because they have more motivation because of the profits. Its understandable that they are reluctant now because the government clearly favour the DPSUs.

May be it will take many decades and several delayed projects for the government to finally wake up.

You seriously need to work some years in these virtuous private firms or research the topic extensively to understand its beyond what “Teer says” or the ” bad bad DPSU” etc. The much vaunted private firms you speak of are currently part and parcel of many DRDO projects. They have had hits, they have had misses. DRDO has had to hold them by the hand and develop their capabilities. Even so, they continue to lack competence in some areas where their management simply does not see any commercial motive. And that is what differentiates the DPSU from the Pvt firm.

The DPSU is there, come rain, come snow, come weather, irrespective of how poorly the original contract was phrased. Whereas in many cases, the pvt firm will refuse to move till it gets “what it is owed”. The most amusing part in recent years, is how after the DPSU & DRDO separately bowed out of having a say in development for programs (~5 years) and letting the services import whatever they want (with local partners) – the result has been that the services are now realising what they are in for, having been used to being mollycoddled by the Indian establishment. The private sector exists for the profit motive. They neither have time nor the energy to sit and spoonfeed the Service establishment when the latter mucks up procurement.

Second, the DPSU’s as lethargic as they may be, are straightforward about meeting service requirements and ignore margins. The pvt firms love complexity, it brings in margins. Add cost and time delays as a given.

The issue is beyond black or white and taking sides.

The fact is the DRDO’s projects are invariably bleeding edge vis a vis what Indian industry can achieve. The DRDO has to don multiple hats, bring along multiple stakeholders and meet the demands of a finicky customer, who can and does import if it feels it is shortchanged in even a minor parameter.

That is the issue, not private or public. No Indian firm has displayed anywhere near the achievement or capability the DRDO has, vis a vis its strategic programs. The kind of multilayered Program and Project Management DRDO did in these programs is yet to be replicated anywhere else, public or private. There is not a single case study on it, because the organization has not been into self promotion unlike the much vaunted Indian IT sector or even automotive.

So please – start getting serious on the topic yourself. The Indian media is full of wannabes like Aroor Thapar etc who compare the LCH to “Rambos helicopter in Afghanistan” (no sh*t sherlock, he actually said it)….given that..you’ll do much better!

The tejas looks like a mix between a jaguar and a mirage 2000.

Nic

The landing gear is very Jaguar-ish.

I know i was just joking. What will happen to the upgraded MIG 27s are they in for an engine upgrade ?

A section in the IAF was interested in an AL-31F proposal but another section felt it was unecessary and that the aircraft didn’t really need it, and it was too expensive..but things may now change

RCS does not depend on size..it depends on surfaces and the angles .Plus RAM coating.

The Mig 21 is smaller than the Rafale..does it have a smaller RCS?

So to keep on saying that because the LCA is smaller than the Gripen,it will have a lower RCS is nonsense.

A smaller aircraft has smaller area to reflect RF energy from. With me so far?
Ok – now if you take two aircraft with similar planform, eg MiG-29 and Su-27, which has the bigger RCS?

So size does have an effect on aircraft of a similar class/similar design attributes.

So, that is what Kramer was saying.

Of course, if you compare aircraft of two different generations with entirely different technology built into them, a larger sized aircraft can have lower RCS than a much smaller one. In fact it may even have an advantage in some cases, allowing for selective planform shaping. But generally, it also has a much larger area that needs to be carefully shaped, and managed.

Now coming to the LCA, it was designed keeping RCS reduction in mind. These include its y-shaped intakes, plus certain other features which have been tested and production capabilities built up.

Given this, and the fact that the LCA is smaller than the Gripen, its a reasonable assumption to state that it would be “competitive” in terms of RCS. Stating that it will be radically lesser or much larger, either, ways would be incorrect.

BTW the Russians reportedly got a MiG-21 down to 0.25 mtr sq with RAM etc. Fairly creditable versus the Rafale. But the larger Su-35 is still stated to be in the 1-3 Mtr Sq range.

Kramer, exactly. If the PAF does something creditable, I dont see why an IAF guy wont give them due credit either. They say it as it is, when it comes to operational issues/ pros and cons.

BTW, glad you liked the Mirage 2000 link. Anyways, there is another interesting thing I came across. Thales had originally pitched a downgraded/reduced cost Mirage 2000 upgrade to the IAF with the RC400 radar. The RC400 was stated to be lesser than the RDY radar range, but much lesser cost. Rest of the stuff was standard, MDPU, full LCD display etc.
Found this link which backs it up.

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-044///MP-044-A05.pdf

Given the costs involved, its fairly apparent that the news that the IAF had asked for the full Mirage 2000-5/-9 derived upgrade instead was true, and hence the haggling. Also rubbishes those Defense News claims of IAI involvement. Given mention of only Thales, MBDA and HAL, the EW system is also likely to be the ICMS Mk2 and not the Italian one on the UAE Mirages.

Also, the IAF Mirage upgrade will get them all HMDS as well. I’d say the Thales Topsight.

Teer

I have made my points. Am I concerned when someone says something innacurate? Yes. I would hope we all would be.

So far you havent proven anything he said was inaccurate.

Your entire “argument” hinges on “he wasnt impressed by the take off” but “look they did so much more” – and that “so much more” is more or less part and parcel for any regular ops as well ..without even countering the IAF officers facts which remain bang on target.

I do think it says alot that the IAF feels the need to comment on the very nature of PAF exercises with qoutes like “whats the big deal?”

If a journo asks an IAF officer about an exercise conducted by any other AF, he will give his point of view about whether its a big deal or not. In this case, quite clearly it was not. If tomorrow, the PAF does something impressive and a journo asks him, he might praise them. Its that simple.

Anyway, as I said, have made my point on this.

Not really.