Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[GiantPanda]

The Turks have also made the Hurjet.

Yes but their first fighter is a heavyweight. Koreans built the T-50 first as well before converting that to the A-50 as their first fighter before tackling the KF-21 medium fighter. Turkey went to the KAAN after the trainer (and before the trainer had even matured unlike the T-50.)

It's far more affordable, and great powers don't normally provide options.
Note that rather promising F-20 from Northrop was killed by US themselves.

From design pow, larger design is easier for the aspiring manufacturer.

It wasn't. 1990s China is many things, but it wasn't a newbie aircraft designer and manufacturer.

Larger aircraft are more useful and holds more potential. I can't think of any reason why you would not always go with those if you are more ambitious.

Going with "lightest" of light fighters is like making it a goal to put the smallest lightest training wheels on a training bicycle.

Yes, it is harder to put on smaller, lighter training wheels than regular sized ones that would hold up when the training bike tips to the side. But it is still a very unambitious training bicycle.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Larger aircraft are more useful and holds more potential. I can't think of any reason why you would not always go with those if you are more ambitious.

1 fighter, for all intents and purposes, is 1 fighter.
More is stronger, more survivable than less. Lesser price point helps that.

 

[qwerty3173]

1 fighter, for all intents and purposes, is 1 fighter.
More is stronger, more survivable than less. Lesser price point helps that.

Problems with this reason of thinking is that planes can't stay up in the air indefinitely. Bigger jet means more range means more force concentration. Just as china discovered with the ultralight J12 program, more is less so it doesn't really work.

 

[siegecrossbow]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950069652572303388

Where is the popcorn munching emoji when you need one…

 

[Gloire_bb]

Problems with this reason of thinking is that planes can't stay up in the air indefinitely.

But you still have more of them. You can concentrate, disperse more of them. You can lose more of them.
And produce more of them .

Moreover, if you turn richer later, you invest into aerial refueling and small number of S/A assets, and largely negate most larger fighter advantages.

Like, compare PAF to IAF, fighter strength to fighter strength, air force budget to budget. 85% strength for 15% cost, despite having more and better force multipliers. Yet, PAF aircraft aren't exactly worse than Indian ones. Yet, PAF still manages top of the line training standards (now higher training hrs than USAF; IAF are comparable)
Now, from Indian perspective, add China to the picture. And this is the price of heavy, expensive aircraft. Price only the rich can really afford.

Just as china discovered with the ultralight J12 program, more is less so it doesn't really work.

Problem with J-12, speaking bluntly, was that it was completely inadequate.
By itself it was born from a relevant doctrine, which has proven itself literally as it was being developed.

 

[neutralobserver]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950195073817149942

 

[Lethe]

Beyond the strategic autonomy argument that birthed and sustains the program, the impetus for LCA as a light aircraft specifically comes down to its anticipated role in filling the IAF squadron bathtub. Even in the 1980s, it was clear that India could not afford to import increasingly expensive modern combat aircraft in numbers sufficient to sustain the numbers that are believed to be necessary in the context of the 2-front war scenario that shapes Indian strategic planning. A smaller, lighter aircraft with lower production and operating costs offered the only prospect of achieving these inventory numbers. The wisdom of this fixation on squadron numbers can of course be debated but nonetheless that was the rationale.

 

[siegecrossbow]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950195073817149942

Number of Rafales shot down: 4.

Number of Tejas shot down: 0.

Tejas superior performance to Rafale during Sindoor.

 

[taxiya]

Indians right now... After developed a prototype of SH-15 "clone"...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942177577679888573

BTW, why I'm finding the auto-loading process a bit weird? Why it is shaking & so unstable when holding the shell? The machinery here seems too complicated...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942259558086549962

For comparison, here is SH-15/PCL-181 auto-loading process.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629756196990353408

Because that truck is just a cross-country truck without adaptation to mouning the gun. See the red line, that is the top of the chassis. It is straight and flat. The gun (axis of the rotation mount) is mounted above it. The gun is so far from the ground the they need a tall ladder for soldiers in the video. That also demands a much longer arm for the loader to lift the shell from the ground. The longer the arm, the weaker (relative to actuator) and susceptible to vibration it is.
The mount is so high that in case of battle damage of the loader, soliders have to carry the shell and walk the ladder then lift the shell over shoulder to load. I don't think the Indian army would accept such product.

I have to call this thing closer to the work a pickup-truck mounted machine gun than something for a serious army.


compared to SH-15, see how low the mount is. It can be operated manually when the autoloader is damaged in battle. Worth to note, the Chinese truck's suspension is adjustable to further lower the whole chassis in firing position. That is something the Indian can not do yet.

 

[Ringsword]

Will the US MIC bigger than small firearms agree in building supply line in lndia tho? Were there like precidents before?

An answer to this-perhaps look up the corporate management of Hk/SigSauer and see if they hail from the Ganges.-explains itself.