Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
I am not at all close to anything knowledgeable when it comes to drone technology (UAV) but this latest promo video from a prominent defense firm has not damped my dismissive attitude towards a bragadocious tendencies by some Indians. 0.29 of the video made me shake my head in disbelief, showing off an offensive system that appears to be rusted.

 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
I don't think they could have pulled off anything as successful as the JF-17. That was successful because China was capable enough to pull it off but still backward enough that a project like the JF-17 was worthwhile. It was a unique set of circumstances and I don't think China will involve itself in a similar project again.

By contrast, I can't think of a single "joint development" project with India that wasn't riddled with problems and ended in failure.
Wasn't the JF-17 based on a Russian prototype?

The Russians could certainly have developed a single engined mig in the 90s and 00s for the export market. They lacked funding which Indians apparently had.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
I am not at all close to anything knowledgeable when it comes to drone technology (UAV) but this latest promo video from a prominent defense firm has not damped my dismissive attitude towards a bragadocious tendencies by some Indians. 0.29 of the video made me shake my head in disbelief, showing off an offensive system that appears to be rusted.

The video said its range is 160km yet it said it can travel around India in 16 hours with just 3 stops for refueling. So India is only 640km wide?
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Wasn't the JF-17 based on a Russian prototype?

The Russians could certainly have developed a single engined mig in the 90s and 00s for the export market. They lacked funding which Indians apparently had.
No. The JF-17 originally called Super-7, based on J-7
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
By contrast, I can't think of a single "joint development" project with India that wasn't riddled with problems and ended in failure.
India Brahmos project went well. so does Indian nuclear submarines.
Soviet were completely discarding a single engine in both choppers and fighters. India took great risk by adding FBW, composites to plane so better some thing reliable for engine.
This Su-75 will work for them as no one else is going to cooperate.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
India Brahmos project went well. so does Indian nuclear submarines.
Soviet were completely discarding a single engine in both choppers and fighters. India took great risk by adding FBW, composites to plane so better some thing reliable for engine.
This Su-75 will work for them as no one else is going to cooperate.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Neither are joint developments. The "Brahmos" is just a P-800 and the submarines are leased from Russia.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Wasn't the JF-17 based on a Russian prototype?

The Russians could certainly have developed a single engined mig in the 90s and 00s for the export market. They lacked funding which Indians apparently had.
Russia certainly could have, but it wouldn't make sense to do so. It could and did just export what it already had. The JF-17 was developed as an export fighter because China had nothing of its own to export (the most advanced "indigenous" fighter at that point was the J-10). It wanted to exploit the niche for a light, very cheap fighter. Russia was exporting Sukhois and MiGs, it didn't need to play in that niche.
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
Neither are joint developments. The "Brahmos" is just a P-800 and the submarines are leased from Russia.
Leased sub is for training. I am referring to Indian built nuclear subs that fired ballistic missile recently. Those subs are designed for Indian requirement. similar with Brahmos I will not consider it license more like further development.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Russia certainly could have, but it wouldn't make sense to do so. It could and did just export what it already had. The JF-17 was developed as an export fighter because China had nothing of its own to export (the most advanced "indigenous" fighter at that point was the J-10). It wanted to exploit the niche for a light, very cheap fighter. Russia was exporting Sukhois and MiGs, it didn't need to play in that niche.
The LCA/Tejas was also supposed to be in that niche. Basically the F-5/MiG-21 for the 21st century since both the USA and Russia abandoned that market for higher margins.

In the end, Tejas is not cheap, is not particularly capable, and full of western electronics which are not easily serviceable and come with political strings attached. If they were able to actually have a Kaveri engine, and Uttam AESA, then those would have been major systems they did not have to get Uncle Sam's permission from to sell.
 

Lethe

Captain
Has anyone ever found an honest assessment of the LCA/Tejas program? 90% of what you read is flag-waving nonsense, the other 10% is surface-level speculation (corruption, changing goal posts, Kaveri failure, etc.)

I have found the writings of Professor Prodyut Das interesting over the years. He has written many critical pieces on various aspects of the LCA/Tejas program. A common thread is that he is very critical of ADA and institutional management practices.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is his latest blog post on Tejas gun firing trials/clearance or lack thereof, you can work back through previous posts from there, though posts before 2022 are located on his previous blog
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 
Last edited:
Top