PDA

View Full Version : Indian Mca



scoop
18 May 05,, 05:52
Any One Know Anything About The Medium Combat Aircraft(mca)
Being Devoloped By India

highsea
18 May 05,, 07:56
What do you want to know? There is very little info about it. It is projected to be the replacement for the Jaguar and Mirage 2000, is supposed to be a tailless twin engine design using a Kaveiri-2 engine with TVC, no afterburners, no supercruise, and a cranked delta wing based on the LCA.
Concept studies on the twin-engined Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) have been under way for some time. It is a stealth aircraft optimised for the ground attack role. About the only components common with the LCA will be part of the wing, the Kaveri engine, and some systems and subsystems.

"The LCA wing gives good performance, we understand its aerodynamics well, and would like to retain it for the MCA," says Dr. Harinarayana. It will operate at a much higher wing loading than that of the LCA. The MCA will be in the 12 ton clean weight class, with a maximum take-off weight of about 18 ton. With the emphasis on stealth, the MCA will have two small, outward-canted fins. For stealth reasons, the Kaveri engines will be without afterburners. They will have a slightly higher dry thrust than the LCA engine. These engines will also have thrust-vectoring nozzles for manoeuvring. A super cruise capability is not being sought for the MCA. The MCA will use the radar-absorbent material to reduce RCS.

Also for stealth reasons, external fuel tanks will be mounted above the wings, as is being considered for the LCA. Stores will be carried externally, however, possibly conformally under the wing & fuselage, and will therefore increase radar cross section until released. If all goes well, the LCA and the MCA, along with the indigenously developed Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH), which is approaching certification, will put India on the map as a major aerospace manufacturing country.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/Aircraft/LCA.html
Here is the concept drawing from HAL:

ajaybhutani
18 May 05,, 11:06
with the indians participating n PAK-FA i doubt indians will be interested in putting MCA idea into practice.

Rani Lakshmibai
18 May 05,, 23:16
I think the mission roles of the PAK-FA and the MCA are different. The PAK-FA is said to challenge the F-35 (but some say its for challenging the F-22) while the MCA is more of a stealthy and more powerful version of the LCA.

ajaybhutani
19 May 05,, 02:46
I think the mission roles of the PAK-FA and the MCA are different. The PAK-FA is said to challenge the F-35 (but some say its for challenging the F-22) while the MCA is more of a stealthy and more powerful version of the LCA.
this post of urs states that the roles are different but forgets to mention the roles. Competing with F22/F35 or being the more powerful version of LCA isnt the role IAF or our defence planners would be interested in before investing billions into the projects. Please be more particular about the roles of the two and how we need both/MCA.

Rani Lakshmibai
19 May 05,, 03:56
this post of urs states that the roles are different but forgets to mention the roles. Competing with F22/F35 or being the more powerful version of LCA isnt the role IAF or our defence planners would be interested in before investing billions into the projects. Please be more particular about the roles of the two and how we need both/MCA.


From the article above, "Concept studies on the twin-engined Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) have been under way for some time. It is a stealth aircraft optimised for the ground attack role. About the only components common with the LCA will be part of the wing, the Kaveri engine, and some systems and subsystems."

It says that the MCA is primarily an advanced, twin engined version of the LCA, that is designed to be stealthy GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT. But I don't think that the MCA is structural stealth like the F-22, which is an air-superiority fighter. But I looked into it again, and what I thought was wrong, the F-35 is also a strike fighter like the MCA.

And the PAK-FA is said to have the same mission objectives as the F-35 JSF. I thought that it was supposed to be a challenger to the F-22. Blast it all! Where is our reply to the F-22? :mad: But the MCA and PAK-FA are mission overlaps aren't they? So, maybe you are right, the MCA will be dropped. Though I doubt that, because the objective of the Indian military is to be self-sufficient (and developing stuff with Russia is not self-sufficient enough :)) Plus the fact that we need experience building aircraft ourselves instead of only partially.

Jay
19 May 05,, 14:12
why do we need a reply to F22 or for that matter F-35??

FYI..India build/buy fighters based on their force projections not to compete with other countries.

Unipidity
19 May 05,, 14:57
And I think you are on crack if you think India's domestic industry is going to produce an F-22 alike within the next 15 years.

Asim Aquil
19 May 05,, 18:11
Its probably a scrapped project, by now.

Rani Lakshmibai
19 May 05,, 23:45
Well, the F-22 is slated to be in use until 2050. In accordance with my beliefs that America is a long term threat to India, we had better come up with something that can counter those F-22's because we cannot say with certainity that the US will not be hostile to us at some point in the next 45 years.

I would say that it is more than probable that they will be hostile to us because of India's rapidly growing economy. More economic strength means more military and political strength and America is not going to stand by and watch while India takes over its role (at least the good bits) in the world (nor China either).

So yes, it would be a good idea to come up with something that can counter the F-22 because it is more than likely that America will a major enemy.


<<And I think you are on crack if you think India's domestic industry is going to produce an F-22 alike within the next 15 years.>>

Are you Indian? With a comment like that, probably not. At any rate, India was planning on working with the Russians to build the fighter so yes, it is possible if improbable.

Lord Vastu
20 May 05,, 05:43
The MCA is most definitely a 'deep strike' penetration stealth fighter which
the IAF is keeping mum about. Owing to its small size, radar absorbent paint
and tailless geometrical properties it would go quite undetectable into enemy terrority as a stealth bomber. Should the IAF decide to develop plasma generators weighing around 220lb (100kg), suitable for installation on a tactical fighter aircraft such as the MCA, it might just be as stealthy as the F-22. Russia has already tested the plasma stealth technology on models and on real aircraft, with the Su-32/34 strike fighter believed to be the first combat aircraft to incorporate the system in its airframe.

indianguy4u
21 May 05,, 11:24
Well, the F-22 is slated to be in use until 2050. In accordance with my beliefs that America is a long term threat to India, we had better come up with something that can counter those F-22's because we cannot say with certainity that the US will not be hostile to us at some point in the next 45 years.

I would say that it is more than probable that they will be hostile to us because of India's rapidly growing economy. More economic strength means more military and political strength and America is not going to stand by and watch while India takes over its role (at least the good bits) in the world (nor China either).

So yes, it would be a good idea to come up with something that can counter the F-22 because it is more than likely that America will a major enemy.


<<And I think you are on crack if you think India's domestic industry is going to produce an F-22 alike within the next 15 years.>>

Are you Indian? With a comment like that, probably not. At any rate, India was planning on working with the Russians to build the fighter so yes, it is possible if improbable.


u r too childish man .what u say abt 2050, it will not before 2100 before china can compete against US & India after 25-30 yrs after that. but that doesn't mean we should not invest in MCA & jt indo-russian 5 gen fighter.that will be good in the long term

indianguy4u
23 May 05,, 14:32
Can MCA be develop some thing along the lines of EF 2000, Rafale & JSF F-35. this is the weak point in our AF we don't have a plane in this segment . Also we should bring in BAE,Rolls Royce, Marconi of UK & russians than french . Also the israelis in this venture

Rani Lakshmibai
23 May 05,, 22:45
Unfortunately, some analysts say that China's economy will be larger than America's by 2050 and India's about the same as America's. Others say that it will be 2100. The fact remains that the future is highly unpredictable.

And who we fight and with whom and when is very difficult to predict. The only way we can be sure of India's safety is to have these capabilities right now. That is why we should be ready. But it is a safe bet that India is gonna have to fight someone or another, sooner or later, but it is better to prepare for the worst - i.e. having to fight America.



And what is with the Anti-Muslim words in your whatchamacallit? Yeah the whole issue is confused and religion makes people go emotional instead of rational. Treating Muslims badly is not just treating muslims badly, it's treating Indians badly.

JASOOS VIJAY
24 May 05,, 08:13
Rani lakshmibai,
even if china's economy will be larger than US in 2050(say) , eventhen they will be hardpressed to match US spending in defence .So to say just by bigger eco china will be bigger military power u r daydreaming . U discount the fact that china is relative poorly dveloped in the hinterland , While US u will know better.Ppl o0f china will rise if they don't get benefits of developments .So chinese will have their handsfull internally

Asim Aquil
24 May 05,, 21:20
In accordance with my beliefs that America is a long term threat to India

How is America a long term threat to India?

India's probably better off developing technologies that compete in todays world. Even if its like 5-10 years behind its not bad considering the decades of advantage today's powers enjoy

Rani Lakshmibai
25 May 05,, 04:59
This century is supposed to be the rise of Asia. And JASOOS VIJAY, the US economy is going to have some serious issues very soon. It's 7.7 trillion dollars in debt and its social security fund doesn't really exist - I wonder how they are going to pay the baby boomers that start retiring in a few years? Plus the fact the US economy is saturated, it can't grow too much anymore, maintain a 8% growth rate for instance.

I'm not trying to blind myself, but rather looking at the problem more or less objectively and this is what I see. With our luck, the US will probably survive this fiscal crisis but I wouldn't bet on it being able to spend too much money. China is already spending 60 billion dollars every year and America spends 360 billion on the military. In 45 years, assuming China reaches a larger GNP and America has fiscal troubles, it wouldn't be out of place to say that they might be able to spend about the same amounts of money on the military.

Unipidity
25 May 05,, 09:46
You think the US has problems with baby-boomers? China is going to 'be old before it is rich' thanks to 1-child etc.

Of course, to have a problem with an old populace you actually have to have some kind of social security for a non-working population. I really have no idea how much of a burden a 65 year old chinese woman is vs her US equivalent, but I imagine... a lot less.


This century is supposed to be the rise of Asia. And JASOOS VIJAY, the US economy is going to have some serious issues very soon. It's 7.7 trillion dollars in debt and its social security fund doesn't really exist - I wonder how they are going to pay the baby boomers that start retiring in a few years? Plus the fact the US economy is saturated, it can't grow too much anymore, maintain a 8% growth rate for instance.

I'm not trying to blind myself, but rather looking at the problem more or less objectively and this is what I see. With our luck, the US will probably survive this fiscal crisis but I wouldn't bet on it being able to spend too much money. China is already spending 60 billion dollars every year and America spends 360 billion on the military. In 45 years, assuming China reaches a larger GNP and America has fiscal troubles, it wouldn't be out of place to say that they might be able to spend about the same amounts of money on the military.

indianguy4u
25 May 05,, 10:39
Rani lakshmi ,
see china & japan r buying american bonds with their huge reserve ( japan-2+ trillion$ & china 650+ billion $). they both r refinacing US in a long way . Also US is the sole superpower do u think they have not thought about all these problems.So all u say of china challenging US is long way off .

indianguy4u
25 May 05,, 10:40
also lets plz get back to the topic of MCA .Can someone contribute worthwhile on the topic

ajaybhutani
04 Jun 05,, 09:28
For MCA vs PAK-FA in ground attack role
1. MCA isnt supposed to have internal bays making stealth capabilities of MCA wrt doubtful.
2. the MCA engine Kaveri is nowhere near the performance of the planned AL41F.
3. it lacks supercruise.
And what speciality does this airframe offer that will make it a better aircraft than PAK-FA in ground attack of course i dont think indians are planning to feild MCA with better avionics than PAK-FA..of course it can be the case other way around.
Then comes the worth of investment... is india rich nough to have a completely different project for a land attack aircraft when it is investing in a multirole fighter with better land attack capabilities. Of course if it was a plan for the intercontinental bomber (say a HCA) rather than a MCA then it would have made a lot of sense.

indianguy4u
04 Jun 05,, 16:26
. Of course if it was a plan for the intercontinental bomber (say a HCA) rather than a MCA then it would have made a lot of sense.

Why ajay u think IAF needs HCA? As far as my thinking goes India is not gonna fight any countries other than pakistan & probably china. While paksitan is small geographically, while china is large. So by using mid air refulling (for MCA) range can be increased. So whats the need for inter continental bombers.

ajaybhutani
05 Jun 05,, 19:02
Why ajay u think IAF needs HCA? As far as my thinking goes India is not gonna fight any countries other than pakistan & probably china. While paksitan is small geographically, while china is large. So by using mid air refulling (for MCA) range can be increased. So whats the need for inter continental bombers.
the same reason india has TU142 and is trying for TU22. india increasingly needs a lot of control over the indian ocean. Eventually in 10 years time indian ocean of IN should be like the pacific is for USN.Furthermore its all about power projection. its quite possible that the russians ask india in for a long range bomber project too in case the PAK-FA progress and cooperation is good.

Joseph
06 Jun 05,, 00:49
Why ajay u think IAF needs HCA? As far as my thinking goes India is not gonna fight any countries other than pakistan & probably china. While paksitan is small geographically, while china is large. So by using mid air refulling (for MCA) range can be increased. So whats the need for inter continental bombers.
This world is not so simple as that.Where do you 'mid air' refuel MCA?In chinese terrritory? :biggrin: You will be dead by then.
India has the respnsiblity for India Ocean Region.If a war with China occurs,it wil ve fought in South China sea where they have advantage.What if a crisis occurs in Fiji?Don't we need long range fighters then?By confining to China and Pak we are confining ourselves.Instead we must look at every opportunity to grow and strengthen.We are going to become a developed country which will face a lot of threats.

JASOOS VIJAY
06 Jun 05,, 14:50
This world is not so simple as that.Where do you 'mid air' refuel MCA?In chinese terrritory? You will be dead by then.
India has the respnsiblity for India Ocean Region.If a war with China occurs,it wil ve fought in South China sea where they have advantage.What if a crisis occurs in Fiji?Don't we need long range fighters then?By confining to China and Pak we are confining ourselves.Instead we must look at every opportunity to grow and strengthen.We are going to become a developed country which will face a lot of threats.

Why should India have to go & fight in south china sea? U fight were u have an advantage & not where u don't.

About fiji, whats the use of Aircraft carriers & submarines esp the nuclear powered subs.

Unmindfull military expenditure is not good for the economic health of the country

ajaybhutani
06 Jun 05,, 16:51
Why should India have to go & fight in south china sea? U fight were u have an advantage & not where u don't.

Maybe to take out the Chineese navy before it leaves the anchor. For thats where its the easiest when ur enemy dsnt know u r coming.
Maybe to terrify an african country closing its economy to indian companies and nationalizing all the indian investments in its borders.an aircraft carrier will take a week or more to reach there and for quick action an HCA will do the job than a HCA flying high in air. furthermore HCA would find use as anti ship operations and its powerful radar and huge range will make it a hell of a replacement for stuff like TUs . we might be able to use it for anti sub capabilities, reconsciance aircraft etc etc.
HCa can be somthin based on scramjet technology to make it a beast.
LCA will be in only in 2010 or so. so a MCA will start only after that and will not finish before 2016-8 and it will offer not much use . and by 20120-15 the russians might have scramjet tech or ion based jet engines etc we can partner them for a joint venture for a new reange of ultra long range beasts like HCA. and get it ready by 2020-5 etc

highsea
06 Jun 05,, 22:18
Maybe to take out the Chineese navy before it leaves the anchor. For thats where its the easiest when ur enemy dsnt know u r coming. That's what submarines are for. ;)

Maybe to terrify an african country closing its economy to indian companies and nationalizing all the indian investments in its borders.an aircraft carrier will take a week or more to reach there and for quick action an HCA will do the job than a HCA flying high in air. furthermore HCA would find use as anti ship operations and its powerful radar and huge range will make it a hell of a replacement for stuff like TUs . we might be able to use it for anti sub capabilities, reconsciance aircraft etc etc. :eek: Terrify an African country?? I don't know, you can make retaliatory strikes with bombers, but they will be subject to attacks. Carriers are better ways to project power. But an HCA would be useful for anti-shipping in the Indian Ocean, and bombing your enemies in case of a war.

HCa can be somthin based on scramjet technology to make it a beast. That puts some pretty heavy limitations on the platform. A multi-role bomber would be more useful. You can't do much at 100,000 feet and mach 8. You sure as hell aren't going sub hunting with the thing.

LCA will be in only in 2010 or so. so a MCA will start only after that and will not finish before 2016-8 and it will offer not much use . The MCA looks like India's version of the F-117. In other words, something that you can go in and make a nighttime strike on high-value targets. It doesn't look like anything that's supposed to fight it's way out of a scrap. Why in the hell the US calls the F-117 a fighter is a mystery (because it can carry a sidewinder? lol). So MCA gives up the afterburner, supercruise, etc, and goes for stealth with a relatively small tailless design. It's not a bad idea, the weakness in the plan is the external weapons. If the AC is picked up on radar, you have no choice but to to dump everything and try to disappear.

and by 20120-15 the russians might have scramjet tech or ion based jet engines etc we can partner them for a joint venture for a new reange of ultra long range beasts like HCA. and get it ready by 2020-5 etc I think Russia is more than 10 years from a workable bomber platform using scramjets. It would take a huge infusion of money to make that happen (like 100 Bn dollars). Scramjets are better suited to long-range, high-altitude cruise missiles, than manned bombers, at least anytime in the near future. In the more distant future, we will see scramjet platforms doing bombing missions and returning to base. But even these will probably be unmanned.

Anyway, it looks to me like the MCA and Pak-fa are two different concepts, there is room for both types, but the MCA needs to be as stealthy on the way in, as well as the way out, if it's to really work.

The Pak-fa is more of a front line fighter, theoretically. It needs to be capable A2A platform. The MCA needs to be able to sneak in and strike command and control facilities, power generation and communications, etc. Try to generate some chaos and confusion before the real battle starts.

ajaybhutani
07 Jun 05,, 06:46
That's what submarines are for. ;)

i was looking at the Pearl Harbour kind of attack launched from long distance bombers supported by aircraft carriers etc.


:eek: Terrify an African country?? I don't know, you can make retaliatory strikes with bombers, but they will be subject to attacks.

hmm... but wont it work for taking out some target very specific fast without being noticed. like a nuclear establishment. a bridge etc.



Carriers are better ways to project power. But an HCA would be useful for anti-shipping in the Indian Ocean, and bombing your enemies in case of a war.
That puts some pretty heavy limitations on the platform. A multi-role bomber would be more useful. You can't do much at 100,000 feet and mach 8. You sure as hell aren't going sub hunting with the thing.

both are just possible spin offs ;)
1. make it a multirole bomber. with possible anti ship operations
2. make it a extra fast monster for recon missions and taking out somthing imp without firing missiles that are detectable and prone to heavy reaction.



The MCA looks like India's version of the F-117. In other words, something that you can go in and make a nighttime strike on high-value targets. It doesn't look like anything that's supposed to fight it's way out of a scrap. Why in the hell the US calls the F-117 a fighter is a mystery (because it can carry a sidewinder? lol). So MCA gives up the afterburner, supercruise, etc, and goes for stealth with a relatively small tailless design. It's not a bad idea, the weakness in the plan is the external weapons. If the AC is picked up on radar, you have no choice but to to dump everything and try to disappear.

1. for acting like a F117 it needs internal bays.
2. With internal weapon bays its debatable wether the MCA might have an RCS greated than PAK-FA. its good to make it a planar structure but leaving weapons outside will end up rendering the idea useless. esp when we have a competitor in the form of PAK-FA.

MCA inits current concept we ok when we werent offered partnershipin PAK-Fa but today its a bit too outdated . Either dump it and use money for better purposes or bring in a better idea.


I think Russia is more than 10 years from a workable bomber platform using scramjets. It would take a huge infusion of money to make that happen (like 100 Bn dollars). Scramjets are better suited to long-range, high-altitude cruise missiles, than manned bombers, at least anytime in the near future. In the more distant future, we will see scramjet platforms doing bombing missions and returning to base. But even these will probably be unmanned.

With LCA still in tests the MCA wont start before 2012 etc. thats a hefty 7 years from now. start a new project for scramjet then and end it by 2025. i.e 20 years from now. and a cooperation like PAK-Fa if successful might be nough to fund that much in 20 years with their growing economieswhen it begins in 2012-5.


Anyway, it looks to me like the MCA and Pak-fa are two different concepts, there is room for both types, but the MCA needs to be as stealthy on the way in, as well as the way out, if it's to really work.

i agree... MCA just isnt stealthy nough .

JASOOS VIJAY
07 Jun 05,, 12:58
Ajay the HCA u want is currently in IAF in the form of Su-30mki. It has the range, the weapons load, radar etc to be used in this type of role. Then why should we waste our time on this, instead we should look to fill the gap in IAF like a potent AC in the form of rafale or eurofighter which is presently missing.

JASOOS VIJAY
07 Jun 05,, 13:02
Also Nuclear powered submarine with nuclear missile are the greatest power projecter in the world along with Aircraft carriers. So India should look in this front to establish its dominance in the Indian Ocean region.

ajaybhutani
22 Jun 05,, 19:07
Ajay the HCA u want is currently in IAF in the form of Su-30mki. It has the range, the weapons load, radar etc to be used in this type of role. Then why should we waste our time on this, instead we should look to fill the gap in IAF like a potent AC in the form of rafale or eurofighter which is presently missing.
i m not looking for a replacemnt for MKI but for a TU22/TU142 kind of bombers.that of a ultra long range bomber and recon aircraft.
And about EF and rafale. What role are u talking about that is missing?? its all covered by MKI in todays terms and in future by PAK-FA.

ajaybhutani
22 Jun 05,, 19:14
Also Nuclear powered submarine with nuclear missile are the greatest power projecter in the world along with Aircraft carriers. So India should look in this front to establish its dominance in the Indian Ocean region.
its all there in the form of ATV and trials to get akulas the sagarika project,
& for AC the ADS and gorshkov . but thats not all a country can rely upon we need much more than that.

raptor1992
22 Jun 05,, 19:27
either way i think that MCA and PAK-FA are still not as good as F-22 and F-35. oh yeah the chinese are making J-12 and J-13 and Su-37 that would match the indian air force but there's hardly any info about it.

ajaybhutani
24 Jun 05,, 10:24
either way i think that MCA and PAK-FA are still not as good as F-22 and F-35. oh yeah the chinese are making J-12 and J-13 and Su-37 that would match the indian air force but there's hardly any info about it.
1. MCA's future is not clear. it might not even leave the drawing board stage.
2. about PAK-Fa we need to see how does it compare to F22 & F35.Its too early to discard the PAK-FA as infireor. Lets wait till both PAK-Fa & F35 come in service.Rite now not much is known about PAK-Fa to compare properly.
3. Russia hasnt given China the SU37 design/technology/aircraft/manufacturing rights. Not much is known about the J12 and J 13. Either. And again will it match upto the russian design like PAK-FA.

raptor1992
24 Jun 05,, 18:53
Maybe to take out the Chineese navy before it leaves the anchor. For thats where its the easiest when ur enemy dsnt know u r coming.

easier said than done. chinese naval bases are heavily defended with SAMs and chinese warships are usually out at sea patroling so another pearl harbor is unlikely.

Russia hasnt given China the SU37 design/technology/aircraft/manufacturing rights

i read from a newspaper that russia may sell Su-37s to PLAAF. that's a bit scary.

ajaybhutani
27 Jun 05,, 09:00
Maybe to take out the Chineese navy before it leaves the anchor. For thats where its the easiest when ur enemy dsnt know u r coming.

easier said than done. chinese naval bases are heavily defended with SAMs and chinese warships are usually out at sea patroling so another pearl harbor is unlikely.

Then take out the lonely warship in the wide ocean thats quite easy...or before their ships cross the mallaca strait. Use HCA with a future variant of Brahmos. shud work well


Russia hasnt given China the SU37 design/technology/aircraft/manufacturing rights

i read from a newspaper that russia may sell Su-37s to PLAAF. that's a bit scary.[/QUOTE]
theresnt much left in SU37 except the bigger airframe and higher thrust engine than what MKI dsnt have. Even then SU37 to china is a distant dream.(only when PAK_FA will be inducted. )

indianguy4u
29 Jun 05,, 04:41
Instead of buying f-16s IAF should look out for oppurunities in JSF, if PAKFA doesn't materilaise. That would be the best bet i thinks.

indianguy4u
29 Jun 05,, 04:45
Then take out the lonely warship in the wide ocean thats quite easy...or before their ships cross the mallaca strait. Use HCA with a future variant of Brahmos. shud work well
Tu(latest version) bomber will/ can do this job better or even su-30(mki is reputed made to be fitted with 3).

ajaybhutani
29 Jun 05,, 10:09
Tu(latest version) bomber will/ can do this job better or even su-30(mki is reputed made to be fitted with 3).
HCA will be a replacement for TUs and so they will do it even better than TU's.

indianguy4u
30 Jun 05,, 09:19
HCA will be a replacement for TUs and so they will do it even better than TU's
How many of these planes will be inducted by IAF, maybe 50-75. Does these figure make a convicing thing of investing in R&D of a new plane.

ajaybhutani
30 Jun 05,, 13:23
How many of these planes will be inducted by IAF, maybe 50-75. Does these figure make a convicing thing of investing in R&D of a new plane.
if we codevelop with russia that makes it at least 150 -200. I guess thats the number LCa will have. Furthermore its at least better than making MCA whose production might never begin or stop to a squadron for PAK-Fa will be more capable than MCA (with MCAs current configurations.).
Also 50-75 might be used by the AF itself. for long range bombers. Add to it the numbere that Navy will need to control the vast Indian ocean. the number might very well be more than 100.Then many coutries will be interested in buying the product.

indianguy4u
30 Jun 05,, 13:41
Ajay if India participate in R&D & in money in PAK-FA & also in HCA type bombers, what about sales to china? I am against it, what about u?

ajaybhutani
30 Jun 05,, 13:55
Ajay if India participate in R&D & in money in PAK-FA & also in HCA type bombers, what about sales to china? I am against it, what about u?
my frnd russia has a big realization that the sales to China are drying up with chineese increasingly catching up in reengineering all that russia sells to china. Russia today dsnt have nough money for even PAK-Fa. so it knew its better to sell to someone except china than noone and so partnered with india. Furthermore we know how hard russians are trying to improve the relations between the two asian giants. if we remains optimistic india might not have a problem selling to china after 10 years. Even if it has at least PAK-FA will be sold to many more countries.
Now the same goes for HCA type of project.

indianguy4u
30 Jun 05,, 14:03
I also hope for better relations with chinese but their support for pakistan make worrying signals for India.

ajaybhutani
30 Jun 05,, 14:05
I also hope for better relations with chinese but their support for pakistan make worrying signals for India.
its all till the border dispute is resolved. The day it is resolved china will loose much of its objective in helping pakistan against india. The air is definitely positive now than ever before.

indianguy4u
30 Jun 05,, 14:10
Don't think its so simple, what about tibet & HH DALAI LAMA & his people in India. Should India sold them for a prospective peace with unreliable chinese(commies).

ajaybhutani
30 Jun 05,, 14:34
Don't think its so simple, what about tibet & HH DALAI LAMA & his people in India. Should India sold them for a prospective peace with unreliable chinese(commies).
things have changed with dalai lama too. i remember him saying that being with china can help tibet than being alone. Now they are looking for autonomy under chineese rule than independence. Furthermore tibet is chinas internal matter like kashmir is indias. Stratgically india shudnt keep tibet as a hurdle if china is ready to forgo paksitan. After all the only reason india is letting dalai lama live in here is to keep the tibetan resistance alive. Though i really wonder how much influence dalai lama has in todaystibetan people.

indianguy4u
30 Jun 05,, 14:42
What i implied was why should we leave out our bargaining chip, just to keep chinese in good humour.

ajaybhutani
30 Jun 05,, 14:51
What i implied was why should we leave out our bargaining chip, just to keep chinese in good humour.
we wont unless china leaves its barain chips.

indianguy4u
01 Jul 05,, 05:01
Then thus it implies that MCA is non-viable & non-stater & only PAK-FA will be our next major induction.

hammer
01 Jul 05,, 07:33
Then thus it implies that MCA is non-viable & non-stater & only PAK-FA will be our next major induction.

IMO, the MCA doesnt have any future. Even the LCA hasnt been inducted yet. Instead of of wasting money on MCA, we can go for joint research or production with other countries.That will cut the cost and time.

indianguy4u
01 Jul 05,, 09:28
Instead of of wasting money on MCA, we can go for joint research or production with other countries.That will cut the cost and time.
But does GOI understands it?

ajaybhutani
08 Jul 05,, 11:07
But does GOI understands it?
it does and thats why they went for PAK_FA joint development.

indianguy4u
09 Jul 05,, 09:48
But ajay PAKFA can do is be as good as JSF, what about F-22? Don't the russians want something to rival that beast.

Proud Indian
28 Jul 05,, 13:00
MCA is 5 th gen. fighter (AND as 4 supersonic cruise PAK FA has supercruise.)
and is thought to be complete in 2015 (if project starts)
HERE IS A PIC




Looks kool YEH! GO INDIA

Proud Indian
28 Jul 05,, 13:13
HCA will be a replacement for TUs and so they will do it even better than TU's.
Any links for HCA
wat is it?

hello
28 Jul 05,, 13:34
But ajay PAKFA can do is be as good as JSF, what about F-22? Don't the russians want something to rival that beast.

They tried that with Mig 1.42 but when they saw the price they gave up.

hello
28 Jul 05,, 13:37
MCA is 5 th gen. fighter (AND as 4 supersonic cruise PAK FA has supercruise.)
and is thought to be complete in 2015 (if project starts)
HERE IS A PIC




Looks kool YEH! GO INDIA

How are delta wings, canards and external ordnance stealthy? India, I think should stick to PAK-FA.

ajaybhutani
30 Jul 05,, 18:08
Any links for HCA
wat is it?
read the whole thread thoroughly u'll know ..

ajaybhutani
30 Jul 05,, 18:10
How are delta wings, canards and external ordnance stealthy? India, I think should stick to PAK-FA.
dont take the pic so sireously.. its no mroe than some artists impression of PAK_FA whos mixed up ideas to make it look good . nothing related to the actual project.