ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Can you compare amount of money LCA got to any other planes developments . Its got least amount of money and also scientists were forced to redesign wheel for almost all systems including various testing facilities as well. Also there is something called as FOC and ADA has promised to integrate BVR capability before that. We are newbies in plane development and we should learn something from china. They never halt or delay a program just because a subsystem is not upto the mark. FOC is still away and those subsystems can still be integrated . We donot have technical expertise of Lockheed martin of Boeing. As nitesh said earlier Even F16 were not perfect in initial years but still USA inducted them .

I dont mind IAF being demanding. Every user should be demanding but you cannot demand moon and that too when our r&d is at infancy stage. amount of money invested in LCA may look huge to Indians but compared to westers countries its very small . I am sure you must have gone through Israel denying AESA technology to us . what can ADA do for that . It will definitely delay the MK2 final version and ADA can do nothing about it. similarly kaveri undedelivered and ADA got under powered engine and they cannot do anything about it . you need to be demanding but at the same time one should understand ground realities as well. demanding Mk2 is 1 year sound good but one has to consider its feasibility as well. we will not be getting GE 414 engines in a year. How will you fly the MK2 then?

--and I will tell you one more thing. The fundamental flaw was reliance on ADA alone. you see noGovt agency will stand up and say sorry tried but could n't do it. GTRE was a prime example. They just were bloody cocooned up until everyone above them realised and ran to EADS/SNECMA whatever. It must have been a competetion to develop the plane betwen the GOI, and private companies. And that decision could have been made as late as 1995-6. Now after millions and years who has the face or guts to reject the plane?(i am theoretically speaking). I am sure IAF has the guts to veto it but will the raksha mantralay allow it? Or will the Raksha mantri himself do it-- never for loss of paty face. and then what happens to agencies like ADA ,NAL if the project is scrapped? what will be there credibility. The whole existence would be unmeaningful. Do we all realise we know these agencies because of one Abdul Kalam. What were the doing before that? So it must have involved or followed a public-private partnership model. I am not saying that would mean sucess. That would mean more than one plane and the freedm to choose which one makes the grade.

 

[nitesh]

I did not say you want to be a pilot in IAF. It implies anyone wanting to be a fighter pilot that too a test pilot the risks are obvious.

So this means that just open the flight envelop and let some body die? There was risk of program getting scrapped hence the cautiousness. What is wrong with that.

For 1500 sorties they have not pushed the bird.The have flown it. OK they flew it in various conditions including 2 night flights.The ADA has never made the performance parameters public. The LSP 6 should have taken flight and performance parameters released before IOC. The ADA hasn't had the courage or conviction to do that. The way LSP-6 flight has been pushed very methodically can be explained by the way LSP-5 has been delayed for 6 months. What more logical reasoning do you need? Hasn't this how it has happened till now?

do you have a better explanation?

Ha ha ha LCA dropped bombs, fired missiles, cleared the sea trials, cleared the high altitude trial, dropped the fuel tanks and you come up saying they have just "flown". Come on now. Where it is written that you need to have x amount of night sorties before you can get to IOC? Why the performance parameter has to be released? Can you find me a reference of this happened before?

Isn't LSP 5 flown? If there is a delay in some particular model that does makes any rational argument. It was flown when it was deemed that it is ok to fly, mean while the flight testing was on, so no rational of harping on that. ADA has clearly said that they are not sure how to go ahead with certain testing so they hired a consultant, they didn't tried to hide that fact. So it is a courageous step from there side.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

LCA is a achievement and it fit perfectly as a Air defense fighter..

LCA is operational now and can be produce in country at mass..

Cheer!



EVERY branch of armed forces now focused on indigenous development..

I wish more production plants for both LCA and MKI..

Also not to say we need another HVF..

I swear to God I never knew or read this post before I wrote post 1224. I really swear.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

So this means that just open the flight envelop and let some body die? There was risk of program getting scrapped hence the cautiousness. What is wrong with that.



Ha ha ha LCA dropped bombs, fired missiles, cleared the sea trials, cleared the high altitude trial, dropped the fuel tanks and you come up saying they have just "flown". Come on now. Where it is written that you need to have x amount of night sorties before you can get to IOC? Why the performance parameter has to be released? Can you find me a reference of this happened before?

Isn't LSP 5 flown? If there is a delay in some particular model that does makes any rational argument. It was flown when it was deemed that it is ok to fly, mean while the flight testing was on, so no rational of harping on that. ADA has clearly said that they are not sure how to go ahead with certain testing so they hired a consultant, they didn't tried to hide that fact. So it is a courageous step from there side.

why performance parameter must be released? Why should 2G scam be investigated? why should we pay tax? Why should CWG be investigated? You want to keep pouring money into R and D without knowing what will land on your plate? Does money grow in your backyard? Are we a nation of surplus budget for last 25 years? If you are a minister in Defence sector and stand on the public podium and say "Ahem---- we aren't sure about the products performance. The agency wants to keep it secret but Ahem the cost of project has gone up by 5 times----" I can bet my last penny that some one will hurl a shoe . It pinches the working class who pay regular taxes so to say.

 

[SHASH2K2]

--and I will tell you one more thing. The fundamental flaw was reliance on ADA alone. you see noGovt agency will stand up and say sorry tried but could n't do it. GTRE was a prime example. They just were bloody cocooned up until everyone above them realised and ran to EADS/SNECMA whatever. It must have been a competetion to develop the plane betwen the GOI, and private companies. And that decision could have been made as late as 1995-6. Now after millions and years who has the face or guts to reject the plane?(i am theoretically speaking). I am sure IAF has the guts to veto it but will the raksha mantralay allow it? Or will the Raksha mantri himself do it-- never for loss of paty face. and then what happens to agencies like ADA ,NAL if the project is scrapped? what will be there credibility. The whole existence would be unmeaningful. Do we all realise we know these agencies because of one Abdul Kalam. What were the doing before that? So it must have involved or followed a public-private partnership model. I am not saying that would mean sucess. That would mean more than one plane and the freedm to choose which one makes the grade.

Well this is something you should scold GOI not research Agencies. competition always take out the best and that should always be allowed.

 

[nitesh]

why performance parameter must be released? Why should 2G scam be investigated? why should we pay tax? Why should CWG be investigated? You want to keep pouring money into R and D without knowing what will land on your plate? Does money grow in your backyard? Are we a nation of surplus budget for last 25 years? If you are a minister in Defence sector and stand on the public podium and say "Ahem---- we aren't sure about the products performance. The agency wants to keep it secret but Ahem the cost of project has gone up by 5 times----" I can bet my last penny that some one will hurl a shoe . It pinches the working class who pay regular taxes so to say.

You again come up with an incoherent post, I asked you can you please show me a reference if it was done before and some how ADA is the agency intentionally trying to hide it.

 

[Rahul Singh]

The ADA has never made the performance parameters public.

They will be greatest fools if they ever. Nowhere in the world performance parameters of defence products is revealed to public. Despite ADA provided rough figures time to time. One should be thankful for that not thankless.

The LSP 6 should have taken flight and performance parameters released before IOC. The ADA hasn't had the courage or conviction to do that. The way LSP-6 flight has been pushed very methodically can be explained by the way LSP-5 has been delayed for 6 months. What more logical reasoning do you need? Hasn't this how it has happened till now?

do you have a better explanation?

Oh Mr Gayanoday you should know that even before LSP-6 rolled out of production line targeted 22* AOA for IOC was already achieved. There was no point in putting effort in test flying LSP-6 before IOC. Even all the tests which ACM said would be completed before June has nothing to do with AOA.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I swear to God I never knew or read this post before I wrote post 1224. I really swear.

 

[p2prada]

Let me start believing on speculations. Yes IAF said increase weight by 1 ton. But ADA also said "will reduce weight of Mk-2 by 500Kg" which naturally means relative to Mk-1's. So effective weight gain will be 1/2 ton.This doesn't sound any significant to me and doesn't make be believe that there will be radical changes in Mk-2.

No. Landing gears are overweight by 500kg and that's what they are trying to reduce by FOC. After that Air force wants an extra 1 ton on the empty weight. So, right now efforts are on to reduce the LCA Mk1 to 5 tons from the current 5.5 tons. Then LCA Mk2 will be increased by 1 tons by redesigning nose, wing, inlets and changes for F414. It will be significant.

Yes indeed LCA will fall short of any M-MRCA range and combat payload wise and it should be. LCA is small fighter jet which belongs to light category and is for different role unlike medium weight M-MRCAs which are being bought by IAF to fill in between MKI's and LCA's role.

But what if Gripen is selected? The LCA Mk2 and Gripen NG have similar specifications.

LCA was always a pure delta and delta is never to dog fight in turning game. It has its advantage in high altitude regime and every body fights at their strength.

LCA is primarily a point defence fighter. All it has to do is point defence and minor air interdiction. If it is a replacement for Mig-21 then it will do the role of a Mig-21, that is shoot intruding enemy aircraft with BVR, WVR missiles or engage using guns. For all that the LCA needs to be able to get into turning games.

Wrong, not me. L MRCA concept is part of IAF's air warfare doctrine release during 1996 and it asks for all MRCA IAF consisting three category of jets weight wise. Interestingly, justification given for buying H-MRCA(MKI) was capability to strike deep into China. Same doctrine also states need for L-MRCA in numbers for border level offensive defensive A2A, A2G missions.

That's why its called a Mig-21++ by ACM. It is a Mig-21 Bison with strike capability.

Despite this, if IAF is interested in having indigenous M-MRCA in addition to indigenous L-MRCA then they should join hands with ADA and develop it as Tejas Mk-3.

The problem isn't the plans of the objectives. The problem is results. Your plans are great. But what if by 2014, ADA suddenly announces, LCA Mk1 failed due to design limitations and LCA Mk2 cannot be done by 2020 and that AMCA will be shelved for a newer platform. What then? It's great if we succeed. But what if we fail? Then where will the replacement come from?

ADA has never had any experience building an aircraft. Why would the IAF take such massive risks chasing behind dreams? Once ADA has successfully made LCA and gets AMCA flying, then I don't see a reason why IAF will not place its cards on ADA or HAL. The IAF instead places its cards on Russia or Europe imply because they are more successful.

It's exactly like the difference between joining IIMs for MBA or some start up college for MBA. It's a huge difference. The Future is completely uncertain if you join a start up while the future is assured if you join IIM. IAF will place its bet on Sukhoi any day over ADA.

GOI saves more money and make even more when they import. So its not like something is being pushed to services throat. Since this is ADA LCA thread i'll stick to it. It was IAF's statement which quoted LCA MK-1 as far advanced replacement for Mig-21s and this statement was also given as a reason for ordering one more squadron. Now will you contradict IAF?

Rather I suspect behind the scene action, similar to another 124 Arjuns inducted y the army for Arjun Mk1.

Not those statements. But i never said M-MRCA is alternative to L-MRCA(LCA) and vice versa.

If we pick Gripen, then that statement becomes void.

Avionics, navigational aids and weapon systems upgradation, ok and necessary but not new Jaguars and re-engined one. A new engine has 2000 hrs of life and Jaguars are not going to serve beyond 2018-20.

Still reliability is very important. Jaguars have a very reliable strike capability and we have some really good pilots on the Jaguar, why retrain those pilots, instead give them better Jaguars. New Jaguars are a stop gap anyway until AMCA comes into the picture.

How may times have you read about a jet penetration defences of USN carrier? Did ever a Soviet jet penetrated upto USN carrier? Yes it is not joke. Jaguars are good but do we know for sure if US Carrier was operation at full capablity? During war games various restrictions are imposed. In real life that will not be the case. If not, then nobody needs to fear USN BG especially China needs nothing what so ever to restrict USN BG movement close to yellow sea even in Pacific.

USN simply did not engage the Russian jets or the Chinese submarine because they did not want to invite a diplomatic war. But the Jaguars penetration during Malabar was well orchestrated in order to sink the carrier. There were 150-200 aircraft flying at the time.

IAF also said it is very advanced replacement of Mig-21 and added "will buy one more squadron because of that". Its not like IAF don't like Mk-1 as whole its like they want certain improvements. AESA is one among these. But IAF is compromising on that because unfortunately no where in the world other than US a X band MMR is fully operation. So neither ADA nor IAF has can do much but wait.

But I am not interested in the radar at all.

BTW earlier there was no concept of Mk-2 at all. It came in only because ADA proposed whole make over of LCA in addition to re-engining and AESA all in order to take care of future challenges.

That was IAF's call. They said they want a better engine. AESA was just an upgrade. The time they announced MK2, the IAF clearly said they have no interest in the Mk1.

Yeah "Will have" applies to LCA because MK-2 will get AESA while Mig-29 will get mechanically steered MMR and Mirage 2000 will get PESA RDY(if ever).

Not if Israel helps us and looks like they already barred the 2052 for export. If Israel re-develops the 2052 in India itself then we will see.

You mean Mirage 2000 9? Anyway LCA was never built as Gripen beater rather as a supportive workhorse. IAF doesn't only quality, it also needs quantity and here LCA fits much better than any.

What if LCA ends up fighting a PAF F-16 or J-10? LCA is not just a supportive workhorse. It is a point defence and an air interdiction fighter.

Then we should not buy any including MKI but Gripen? May be Americans, British, French, Germans, Italians, Spanish and Israelis should not any but Gripen. Point being, Gripen is good but a costly overkill to fill in L-MRCA role in IAF. IAF is building a team with H-MRCA, M-MRCA and L-MRCA and wherever money can be save it should be. L-MRCA requirement is for a workhorse and as term sugests it must be simple, cheap and easily acquirable.

Gripen is a simple, cheap and easily acquirable fighter. We can even work with Saab and get the Kaveri on it once it's out. Gripen cannot replace the heavier contemporaries in certain roles, but it can handle LCA's role many times better.

UNS doesn't operate A-10 but the USAF. A-10 would have been long gone had US not fought successive desert war and Afghanistan war, all against low tech enemy which was already annihilated by cruise missiles and advanced bombers. Yet A-10 always operated under air cover during first gulf war. Even at least one was shot down.

You undermine the success of the A-10. It has less to do with deserts and Afghanistan and more to do with its ability to kill ground troops and tanks. You could say it was under used simply because the enemy was already annihilated.

So will not be newly built, upgraded and re-engined Jaguars. They will need whole lot of testing to validate new technology. They will also have to go through IOC and FOC. Considering IAF signs for re-engining Jaguars today i don't see project getting completed before 2012-13. By then MK-1 will have FOC meaning combat ready.

That's the problem, you are comparing a proven platform with a developing one.

Small budget even more necessitates indigenous efforts. Imported stuffs never comes cheap and replacement sought even 5 lost jets can take whole 1-2 years and twice the price.

But it comes with the guarantee that it will work. Granted imported jets are more expensive, but so is an IIM MBA degree compared to a start up. So, will you base the future 40 years of your life on a cheaper budget college?

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Kunal--- I went after that Suman Babe and landed in Chindits. Jesus. LCA lovers don't go there. Its depressing. She has torn it apart with ample sources. Guys who asked me for source earlier go there. Swear just now I went went there first time for bird watching and was depresed to learn that what I have been standing up for is indeed the reality.
Mark 1 tech demonstraor. Get mark 2 flying in 1 year. Go public private partnership.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

No. Landing gears are overweight by 500kg and that's what they are trying to reduce by FOC. After that Air force wants an extra 1 ton on the empty weight. So, right now efforts are on to reduce the LCA Mk1 to 5 tons from the current 5.5 tons. Then LCA Mk2 will be increased by 1 tons by redesigning nose, wing, inlets and changes for F414. It will be significant.



But what if Gripen is selected? The LCA Mk2 and Gripen NG have similar specifications.



LCA is primarily a point defence fighter. All it has to do is point defence and minor air interdiction. If it is a replacement for Mig-21 then it will do the role of a Mig-21, that is shoot intruding enemy aircraft with BVR, WVR missiles or engage using guns. For all that the LCA needs to be able to get into turning games.



That's why its called a Mig-21++ by ACM. It is a Mig-21 Bison with strike capability.



The problem isn't the plans of the objectives. The problem is results. Your plans are great. But what if by 2014, ADA suddenly announces, LCA Mk1 failed due to design limitations and LCA Mk2 cannot be done by 2020 and that AMCA will be shelved for a newer platform. What then? It's great if we succeed. But what if we fail? Then where will the replacement come from?

ADA has never had any experience building an aircraft. Why would the IAF take such massive risks chasing behind dreams? Once ADA has successfully made LCA and gets AMCA flying, then I don't see a reason why IAF will not place its cards on ADA or HAL. The IAF instead places its cards on Russia or Europe imply because they are more successful.

It's exactly like the difference between joining IIMs for MBA or some start up college for MBA. It's a huge difference. The Future is completely uncertain if you join a start up while the future is assured if you join IIM. IAF will place its bet on Sukhoi any day over ADA.



Rather I suspect behind the scene action, similar to another 124 Arjuns inducted y the army for Arjun Mk1.



If we pick Gripen, then that statement becomes void.



Still reliability is very important. Jaguars have a very reliable strike capability and we have some really good pilots on the Jaguar, why retrain those pilots, instead give them better Jaguars. New Jaguars are a stop gap anyway until AMCA comes into the picture.



USN simply did not engage the Russian jets or the Chinese submarine because they did not want to invite a diplomatic war. But the Jaguars penetration during Malabar was well orchestrated in order to sink the carrier. There were 150-200 aircraft flying at the time.



But I am not interested in the radar at all.



That was IAF's call. They said they want a better engine. AESA was just an upgrade. The time they announced MK2, the IAF clearly said they have no interest in the Mk1.



Not if Israel helps us and looks like they already barred the 2052 for export. If Israel re-develops the 2052 in India itself then we will see.



What if LCA ends up fighting a PAF F-16 or J-10? LCA is not just a supportive workhorse. It is a point defence and an air interdiction fighter.



Gripen is a simple, cheap and easily acquirable fighter. We can even work with Saab and get the Kaveri on it once it's out. Gripen cannot replace the heavier contemporaries in certain roles, but it can handle LCA's role many times better.



You undermine the success of the A-10. It has less to do with deserts and Afghanistan and more to do with its ability to kill ground troops and tanks. You could say it was under used simply because the enemy was already annihilated.



That's the problem, you are comparing a proven platform with a developing one.



But it comes with the guarantee that it will work. Granted imported jets are more expensive, but so is an IIM MBA degree compared to a start up. So, will you base the future 40 years of your life on a cheaper budget college?

Atta boy P2P. Right on the dot again. Will be interesting to see what Jane's write or think of LCA mark 1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
you are on my side right?

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Well this is something you should scold GOI not research Agencies. competition always take out the best and that should always be allowed.

well well well here we go again. Which means research agencies do not have a concience? They are freakin robots who will keep doing their work unmindful of what they are doing is not what has been requested? GOI changes ,plunges,sits stands,falls,goes and comes

ADA is not a institution that wavers to geoploitical climate.

Shask2K2 I mean do you really need to argue for the sake of arguing. It has now come down to the point who should take the blame Tejas mark 1 underperformance. Hence I say-------

Mark 1 tech demonstrator. Mark 2 must fly in 12 months. Or else stop wasting tax payers money.

 

[SHASH2K2]

well well well here we go again. Which means research agencies do not have a concience? They are freakin robots who will keep doing their work unmindful of what they are doing is not what has been requested? GOI changes ,plunges,sits stands,falls,goes and comes

ADA is not a institution that wavers to geoploitical climate.

Shask2K2 I mean do you really need to argue for the sake of arguing. It has now come down to the point who should take the blame Tejas mark 1 underperformance. Hence I say-------

Mark 1 tech demonstrator. Mark 2 must fly in 12 months. Or else stop wasting tax payers money.

Its really waste of time talking to someone like you . Good Bye . Hope you give yourself some much needed break.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Its really waste of time talking to someone like you . Good Bye . Hope you give yourself some much needed break.

ShashdoKdo don't be upset yaar. I am also a tejas supporter. I am only asking for mark 2 to fly---in 1 year. You are not happy with that?

 

[vijay jagannathan]

They will be greatest fools if they ever. Nowhere in the world performance parameters of defence products is revealed to public. Despite ADA provided rough figures time to time. One should be thankful for that not thankless.

Oh Mr Gayanoday you should know that even before LSP-6 rolled out of production line targeted 22* AOA for IOC was already achieved. There was no point in putting effort in test flying LSP-6 before IOC. Even all the tests which ACM said would be completed before June has nothing to do with AOA.

Well Mr. sarva-gnan like you said there is no point in anything now. Fly mark 2 in one year or stop wasting tax payers money. Or go to Chindits and have your fill. You are forewarned---Its depressng. Atleast I am asking for Mark 2 to fly.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

You again come up with an incoherent post, I asked you can you please show me a reference if it was done before and some how ADA is the agency intentionally trying to hide it.

Incoherent? Then either One of us is drunk and heaven help us. I hope both of us are sober. It sounds incoherent because you are fixated on making Mark 1 the phantom of the skies and the best thing that happened to IAF.. I am incoherent becuase I am looking at the reality and its ramifications.

I did not say ADA is hiding facts. I am saying they are keeping quiet. Its so tiring I have to repat myself over and over again. Its exactly the same problem we had with Kaveri. GTRE never acknowledged or came out with the problems until it blew on their face(literally speaking). I mean no agency would come forward and talk about their helplessness. I mean why would they invite trouble upon themselves? Would this scenario be avoided if there was a competitor(Read private or public-private arm) who was also developing a plane based on airstaff specifications? It most definitely would. Yes Maybe both may not live up to expectations. But I tell you they will scramble and not work as if there is God granted eternity to develop a 3+ generation plane when rest of the world is talking of 5+ generation plane.

Did not have technology,were hit by sanctions, did not have the manpower,did not have this ,that,nut,bolt--I mean how long will you sing this song? And you want to sing this for another 5 years. Ok baba take your time sit in your workshop and develop it. Take 25,50,100 years. Develop the technology.Nobody will complain. When you know that the plane has limitations and serious limitations and does not fulfill the airstaff requirements why are you thrusting it down IAF's throat?
Instead just take a break,have a kit kat and start work on Mark 2. This is reality. This is not something I have imagined. And this is exactly what has happened. and please --- don't ask me for references. Oh now I can say-- go to chindits-- I only found out about it an hour ago and I am not influenced by them. But they seem to sound like me and they have sources---lots of them. Happy reading.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Well said!!! Atlast you see my point. In one year you will get babji ka ghanta and in 5 years you will get bada babaji ka bada ghanta. But at Tax payers cost. Mandir mein ghanta,ashram mein ghanta,asman mein ghanta, mantralay mein ghanta,ADA mein bhi ghanta---Ghanta hi ghanta.

But now I am khonphused. I am asking for Tejas Mark 2 to be developed within 1 year. You are not happy?

Sorry we both missed the point. Stop wasting Tax payers money.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

guys in retrospect would development of Kaveri had much impact on the performance of the plane itself? I guess not. of course apart from acquiring engine tech. On pure performance basis we would have had a similar plane maybe lesser thrust.

So on that basis with due respects to KH sir, fundamentally going for a small light weight fighter was wrong. Had it not been small and light weight maybe we would not have had these problems because hell M2K which first flew in 198 and introduced into operation in 1982 flew at mach 2.2 and engine has 95kn thrust. I mean what were our designers thinking? making a plane small would evade radars and then what else and for how long?

India could have had so many options in terms of engine thrust had they thought about flexibility in design to accomodate alternate engine---ah thats the key word---flexibility in terms of engine and thought of a higher power engine from day 1. They trusted GTRE too much and thought Kaveri and small size would be unbeatable combination.

I mean since 1983 there have been so many fighters developed successfully? did they not look at the single engine plane thrust generated way back in 1983 and then again in 1996. They sem to be oblivious to the fact that every plane making machine was going beyond 90KN THRUST.

I would have thought as scientists you would always think one step ahead and give more than what is asked.

I wish today we can buy over the mirage production line. and keep funding research on the side lines.

 

[arya]

Then Stop thrusting a tech demonstartor that too half done down IAF's throat. IAF does not want it. It wants mark 2 and that too if it comes on time. Not 5 years later. So get started in a years time. Or else stop wasting tax payer's money.

controll yourself

its about to make a planes not a bycyle i can understand your feeling but you have also understand the things