If you feel its flaming or rule violation. Just tag me and give it ~ 24 hours as I am online here only at my convenience.
Don't feed the flamewar in interim.
New members are coming off hot from PDF flamewar atmosphere, so also give them time to adjust to rules here.
I dont know the answers here. Maybe @Gessler has some insight. I have bookmarked the original YT video for later measured perusal and tell you if I gleam anything useful from it.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I often take a somewhat devil's advocate absolutist position just to see if someone will produce a reply like this :love:
You are very correct it ultimately boils down to confidence and maturity developed of the platform w.r.t the physical capacities (shipyards and funding).
India is lacking...
Fair enough. I also have earlier stated that I wish the LCA was mk2 size to begin with...the original Tejas (mk1) is a little too small IMO.
But these were all requirements driven from the IAF. They are more or less satisfied with the results and the ecosystem to be had in the 4th and 4.5 gen...
The mk1A comes equipped with the AESA Uttam radar and the arsenal at disposal will be the same as mk 2.
So its not question of "not meeting IAF needs" (as these are very much driven qualitatively by the radar and weapon arsenal) though mk2 will certainly augment range/payload on the tejas...
A look into the deliberate intelligence lapse, scapegoating and bad generals immediately after the conflict, article from 2000.
@Jackdaws @Marlii @Gessler et al.
https://www.mansworldindia.com/currentedition/from-the-magazine/kargil-army-take-wrong-man-task-lapse/
Its about time. Building just 3 of a class (or 3 + 3 in A, B-upg format) is not sufficient given lack of true economy of scale and the force levels PLAN has achieved already. 8 ship builds is minimum going forward.
BTW, INS Imphal did a test: