Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Mca

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JASOOS VIJAY
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JASOOS VIJAY
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaybhutani
    replied
    Originally posted by highsea
    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.
    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 .
    Last edited by ajaybhutani; 07 Jun 05,, 06:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • highsea
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaybhutani
    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. ;)
    Originally posted by ajaybhutani
    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.
    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.
    Originally posted by ajaybhutani
    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.
    Originally posted by ajaybhutani
    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.
    Originally posted by ajaybhutani
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaybhutani
    replied
    Originally posted by JASOOS VIJAY
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JASOOS VIJAY
    replied
    Originally posted by joseph
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Joseph
    replied
    Originally posted by indianguy4u
    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? 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaybhutani
    replied
    Originally posted by indianguy4u
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • indianguy4u
    replied
    Originally posted by ajaybhutani
    . 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ajaybhutani
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • indianguy4u
    replied
    also lets plz get back to the topic of MCA .Can someone contribute worthwhile on the topic

    Leave a comment:


  • indianguy4u
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • Unipidity
    replied
    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.

    Originally posted by Rani Lakshmibai
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rani Lakshmibai
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Asim Aquil
    replied
    Originally posted by Rani
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X