. Narratives don't create requirements. HAL's offer is to offer a helicopter that doesn't even exist. The Russians have to navalise the Ka-226T first.
We are talking about Naval Dhruv and NUH. Which exists.
Saheb ji, should I explain the difference between LCA and AMCA now?
Looks like you keep getting lost in your train of thoughts.
ADA is far more realistic. They simply said the AMCA is not suitable for the navy and a new design has to be made from scratch. So take the simpler TEDBF in the meantime and a naval NGF will follow after that.
^^ this is the topic we have started on.
In place of NLCA we have TEDBF. Which came from the realisation that NLCA is not good enough and airforce requirement won't go along with IN for a next generation deck based fighter. (So no NAMCA)
Just like that, HAL realised Navy helicopter requirement cannot go hand in hand with IA/IAF requirement.
Thus from the start itself they designed two seperate designs shipborne vs high altitude requirements. One 13ton and another 11.5 ton.
Both ADA and HAL is realistic here. ADA got user backing thus TEDBF. HAL is yet to, thus going ahead with 13 ton.