ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Godless-Kafir]

If China thought like Vijay and p2prada then the PLA would have to have scraped their entire aircraft program right after it produced those fake,faulty,crappy, Mig-21 clones called the j-6 or the j-7.

 

[p2prada]

1. Its not indigenous at the cost of progress it is "indigenous" the only way to progress.

LCA cannot beat PLAAF or even PAF. The MKIs and MRCA can.

2. sadly for you almost every big power through out the world thinks that way only...otherwise china would'nt have gone for an inferior copy of su 30's e.g J 11 while had chance of importing off the shelve.

All big powers make top rate stuff. If there was something better available, they would grab it with both hands.

4. can you kindly enlighten us about the deveopement time for SU 30 mki from the drawing board? Do you think gripen is just a cheap point defense fighter? If your answer is YES then i am sorry to tell u that you are wrong & if your answer is NO then let me assure you that in coming years we will have a tejas which can scare a gripen NG which even in its most evolved shape carries more than 30% of foreign components.

Sure. Our elders always say Dream big.

5. LCA dose not fulfill the IAF requirements? Hmmm very bad indeed. As far as i know through out the development of tejas, IAF changed its requirements for about a dozen times so exactly which of them is not fulfilled?

LCA Mk1 does not fullfill requirements in thrust and payload. The shifting of goal posts is done by every single capable air force in the world. Requirements change by every passing day. This happened to F-22 too and is continuously happening to the F-35 too.

There is no project in the world which has seen more requirements changes than the F-35 in the last 100 years of flying.

Even i heard that on the day of operational clearance Mr. Air chief expressed his desire to find LCA in air superiority role.Again a few days back barbora said Tejas is likely to replace both mig 21 & 27 means he wants a multirole jet. JOKERS

Yes. And they are right. LCA cannot yet handle Air superiority missions. Both IOC and FOC jets will have less than required sustained turn rates.

7. Guys dont be surprised if Tejas meets with a couple of accidents in the hands of IAF by 2012 before complete clearance can be achieved .

IAF will not risk their pilots and ground crews for that. You are being naive.

8. You are so much right in saying that facts speak for themselves.So lets wait untill Tejas not only speaks rather roars in the sky.

Its ROAR is a MEOW. Only Mk2 fits requirements. It is the only platform that can power the radar, avionics and EW at the required levels.

Mk1 is just a prototype(including FOC) which is being inducted in squadron numbers.

 

[p2prada]

If China thought like Vijay and p2prada then the PLA would have to have scraped their entire aircraft program right after it produced those fake,faulty,crappy, Mig-21 clones called the j-6 or the j-7.

China has a more capable R&D industry along with manufacturing capability than India. They don't have a choice with indigenous since that's their only option.

If India goes only indigenous, then any new war with China will be exact same copy of the 1962 war. We will lose again. LCAs cannot fight Chinese war birds.

 

[A.V.]

It has come to the notice that some people are trying to make passes and comments to fellow members , lets say you like the LCA or you hate it still there is no need to get personal and attack a fellow members with some cheap comment , lets hear the arguments and counter arguments its better way to expresses views

thank you

 

[ppgj]

what is happening here?? just because ACM says something (which he has retracted since) why so much anger, disdain, antipathy towards LCA?? no analysis based on facts, only rhetorical rants!! amazing!! oh yes, i forgot it is India. sorry.

LCA is in IOC stage now. post IOC induction there are still factors to be validated which would happen from now till it reaches FOC or IOW combat ready. as ACM said himself of "wake penetraion test" which is very important particularly when flown in formations when one crosses the other's wake. this also means FCS needs to be validated which is a logical follow up!!! besides BVR integration, cannon validation, unguided rockets to be fired and ofcourse PGMs. though not comparable in range and payload capacity. LCA will give a run for money to even MMRCA birds in defence role.

what's wrong with people here?? every aircraft goes thro' this and which is natural. only issue is of THUST which will be taken care of. why "underpower" or "not enough thrust" been a factor for Mirages?? jaguars?? why is it applicable to an LCA?? why LCA is being questioned at IOC stage?? surprising to say the least.

LCA mark 1 is a logical necessity to lead to LCA mark 2 and AMCA later. no escape here to any designer or manufacturer. besides it is not just about LCA but rather about setting a base for design, development, production, testing, validation and certification processes. huge is an understatement.

every aircraft is a compromise of various parameters. one chooses according to one's requirement. IAF was never serious about the whole thing. they gave their ASR only in 1985 with R60 as their wvr missile when the project itself was given nod in 1993!!! they changed it to R-73 later which necessitated changes wrt pylons and stress factor and aerodynamics of the A/C. some in IAF (not officially) never thought it would even fly what with established manufacturers(american) even warning the IAF not to fly it. this story, was brought to the notice only when LCA flew, by none other than the then DM george fernades!!! it was only post the first flight and validation of indian FBW/CLAW that IAF started taking a keener interest when they appointed a team under Nanjappa(IAF man) to see/superwise the day to day affairs at ASTE.

As I told LCA is not as capable as the Mirage 2000. If the LCA had been in the size and weight category of the M2K it might.

now LCA initially was looked at as a Mig 21 replacement but LCA has outgrown that. there is no comparison on any parameter.

LCA is more closer to Mirage 2000 as of now and would be closer to/equal to an upgraded Mirages when Mark 2 comes online (when a higher thrust is made available via F414). it is always a trade off. some parameters of LCA are better and some for Mirages are better like for ex -

RCS of LCA will be way lower both due to it's size and composites - an advantage in both BVR/WVR.

Mirages have nine (9) hard points vs eight (8) of LCA.

there was a video where LCA test pilot speaks of a range/radius closer to Mirage 2000. will post if i find it.

Mirage's slightly higher range due to more internal fuel is offset by a higher SFC factor as below -

M53 P2 ENGINE.


"¢ A/B specific fuel consumption (kg/daN.h)------ ----2.10

"¢ Dry engine thrust specific
fuel consumption (kg/daN.h) ------------------------0.90

"¢ Weight (lb) ----------------------------------3,340

http://www.snecma.com/IMG/files/m53p2_ang_modulvoir_file_fr.pdf

now compare that to GE 404 family of engines A/B thrust SFA does not exceed 1.85!! and weight less than 2400 kg.

http://www.geae.com/engines/military/comparison_turbofan.html

GE414 sfc is not seen on the site but note this -

IHPTET technologies can reduce the F414 SFC by 4% and increase turbine life to 6,000 hours,

The new engine has increased thrust, an improved thrust-to-weight ratio of 9:1 and a 3- to 4-percent cruise-specific fuel consumption improvement over the F404-GE-400 engine.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/f414.htm

IOW LCA will have more range due to less consumption of fuel due to a better engine.

here is an interesting piece -

Another important difference between the French engine and it´s American counterparts is the fuel consumption. The fuel consumption (known as sfc) of a jet engine is given as lbs of fuel per lb of thrust per hour. The current American engines have a dry thrust sfc somewhere between 0.68 and 0.75. The M53 P2 has a dry thrust sfc of 0.90. This is directly attributable to the relatively low overall compression ratio of 9,8:1 which is in stark contrast to the GE and P&W engines where the ratio is in the order of 30:1.

http://www.mirage-jet.com/Propulsion/M53/m53.HTM

a must read (a reference to Mirage 2000 too, thanks - the great HARRY) - http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downloads/Tejas-Radiance.pdf

Satish ji, if you are talking about me then Gripen's AoA is over 50degrees. F-22 does 60degrees, SH at 45degrees, MKIs and Mig35s AoA is 180degrees.

more for aero shows!!!

compare a similar delta to delta. are they sustainable?? if yes how long??

a sustained high ALPHA wont be more than 20-28 particularly for a compound delta like a LCA. a canard delta wing may afford a better AOA but one can't sustain it. problem with all deltas is the drag factor they face due to the huge wings acting against thrust in AOA maneure - meaning a bleed of energy, loss of fuel. delta wing aircrafts though good for a dog fight will lose out in STR regime which would be common in any dog fight. that is why they are good as high speed interceptors.

in a dog fight between an F-16 and an M2K, if M2K can take a first BVR shot it will also be the first to run away. it will never enter a dog fight in STR regime.

The figures you have given for are not enabled by lift.

when one is banking for a turn which is a precursor to STR, AOA and thrust is what affords it.

Whenever lift coefficient exceeds the magical figure of 1, the aircraft nose starts pitching up.

nose pitching up has more to do with the centre of gravity of a particular aircraft. if CG is aft of centre the aircraft will pitch up.

After a certain point the lift coefficient stabilizes and the aircraft goes out of control. This point is the highest possible Angle of Attack(AoA).

??

in a flight most lift is produced by the wings. in AOA maneure lift coefficient (LC) increases with pitch up angle upto to a critical angle (which is stall angle for that aircraft) beyond which any pitch up reduces the LC drastically due to separation of boundary layer which stalls the wings and engine stall thereafter leading to many times - unrecoverable spin and possibly a crash and a fatal result (unless the pilot ejects).

The LCA's FOC model will give it 24degrees with active fly by wire. Mirage-2000's AoA is 26degrees and the other models are as given above.

so how much of a disadvantage do you think it is?? can you list it out?? particularly when a compound delta will avoid getting into a STR in a dog fight.

tactics!! every design has plusses and minusses and tactics are evolved around it accordingly. besides is 24 AOA for LCA is final??

M2000 exceeds 35 degrees without fly by wire.

do you have figures for LCA AOA without the FBW ALPHA LIMITER?? if yes do share. if not why shoot in the dark??

each aircraft is thouroughly tested in wind tunnels for this. depending on its shape of the wings/fuselage/control surfaces, an "optimum" AOA is derived which the FBW will limit it to. if one wants to exceed for a short duration he has to disengage the FBW and go manual - normal for most.

The figures you mentioned are sustained and instantaneous turn rates. They are calculated along a horizontal plane while Angle of Attack is calculated along a vertical plane. Look at the units, turn rates are measured in deg/second while AoA is only degrees.

AOA is the angle between the line of momentum of the craft and the chord line of the wing. IMO it does not matter whether it is horizontal or vertical plane. it would still be AOA only - though sustained in a turn and as comparisons are made wrt to the others deg/sec is used to gauge which has a shorter turn radius.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

If China thought like Vijay and p2prada then the PLA would have to have scraped their entire aircraft program right after it produced those fake,faulty,crappy, Mig-21 clones called the j-6 or the j-7.

Typical desi looking at the neighbours plate

 

[p2prada]

When people are blindly running around claiming LCA inducted with "severe deficiencies" and trying to show it as waste of money and all that are conveniently forgetting/not aware how other fighters got inducted in other countries for ex.

Severe, severe deficiencies. It is a real Mig-21++.

when EF was inducted it was called as treancahe 1 which was not able to field any BVR weapons or ground attack weapons,

When it was inducted it was one of the best in the world. When LCA was inducted it was equal to the JF-17, aka, one of the worst in the world.

When F 16 was inducted it was termed as "widow maker" but US air force stuck with that and improved over it despite having severe deficiencies persisted with it even in gulf war time. And now it is the one of the most successful fighter around the world. If only there forces could have acted as hard nosed customers and kept delaying the induction these machines could not have been called as successful project.

If you build a really good beast and then you have to work on it, then that is understandable. But if you work on something that is low tech and then say we need to work on it, its called a Failure.

And coming to the point of buying from outside what is best. The EF project was conceived in 1971. Why? They could always buy from US which is one of the closes allies for Europe and provides most of the fire power to NATO. Reason is strategic independence, we have seen US rejecting source codes to Britain for F 35. So basically if European nations keep buying US weapons there foreign policies will always needs to be aligned to US or there forces will suffer. This is the only reason for them to consistently back up the EF project even after not reaching to the "best" available in the market. So are they just wasting there national resources? And so they must be tagged as fools or what?

Yes. It was never strategic independence. Previously all European countries including Sweden made their own aircraft. France, Sweden, Germany, England etc had their own aircraft development.

They did not go for the F-15 because they believed in developing something better. Today, Rafale and EF-2000 are indeed better than the F-15s.

But look at the LCA. Is it being built to be better than all the above aircraft? NO. It is just a replacement for Mig-21. Even that does not full fill requirements.

The best example is France, even after being in NATO they always develop there own product, the reason is simple to have strategic independence.

It has nothing to do with the LCA. Our program has more to do with replacement than build up strategic independence. Even after LCA porject is a complete success. It will never in a million years be the core aircraft of the IAF. IAF will still import until such time ADA is able to build an aircraft that is a world beater.

Coming to MKI, was it the same plane when it was conceived in 1996 with the basic SU 30 frame already available? No we bought 18 Su 30 K with us and paid for all the development funds and till now not all the planes are in the same level as we are inducting the series 3 of that aircraft, and by the time deliveries will be complete they have to be upgraded as there engine is under powered. So if IAF could have waited for all the developments to complete and not invested on the bases and planes to gain the experience, could we have seen such a fine machine with us? The best part is that by using those K's IAF was able to learn the spares management and able to train the technicians to carry out the daily maintenance job. Well now Russia is planning to sell the Su 35 which carry forward the development of Su 30 to China which is our enemy. Ironic isn't it

But MKI was designed to be the best air superiority fighter in the world, short of the Su-35 and Raptor. LCA is nothing compared to that. Bring LCA to those standards and IAF will wait, Eagerly.

LCA was supposed to carry R 60 missiles but mid way the ASR changed that it should carry the R 73 which is double the weight of R 60 so the wing has been strengthened and now it fires the R 73 which MiG29 does not do as of now. Even Mirage does not carry such capable missile as of now.

F-35 changed so many times, its going to end up a completely new aircraft. ASR's change every few years with changing environment. It is a fact. And IAF has inducted sub standard aircraft. Isn't that good enough?

Well Russia had refused to share the source code for integration purpose (ref: retd. air marshal rajkumar's book), but DRDO folks have done it, obviously it has taken time.

It was given in time. Similar to T-90 ToT.

When we calculate the endurance time of LCA we conveniently forget that it has option of in flight refueling which increases it's range and loiter time .

IAF cannot spare tankers simply because LCA does not have long legs. Using Force multipliers to hide deficiencies is being stupid. IAF has clearly mentioned they don't want less range or less payload for more power. They want the same range, same payload for more power.

When we criticize LCA we forget that MKI uses the same mission computer developed for LCA. So money spent on LCA has already started providing the returns.

We forget that LCA was using proprietary hardware like any other machines are using but due to IAF's request DRDO changed the LCA architecture to open standards as it helps in reducing the upgrade cost and most importantly time. But guess what it also needed some time.

The avionics developed for LCA have been used to upgrade the Mig 27.

The pilot support system developed for LCA has been tested now for MKI.

These are some of the examples where this development program has helped us.

Cool. Spinoffs helped IAF make their teeth sharper. But here, we are not talking about bits and pieces. LCA's mission computer is used to power a beast. But as a system the LCA Mk1 is a little cat.

Guys everything is not black and white in harsh world of geo politics, if our forces are dependent on foreign weapons, then we will be hostage to there whims and fancies.

Even after LCA succeeds we will still be hostage to foreign whims and fancies. The best part is the foreign whims and fancies have helped us more than any other thing in the world.

We had military relations with USSR, they vetoed every single decision made against India in return.

We had military relations with France, they were the only power other than Russia that supported our Nuclear tests.

Without the above relations we would have been under major sanctions even today. We would have had so many sanctions we would have been a North Korea or a Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The only trade we would have had is something like oil for food program or some humanitarian assistance under the UN. No country would have traded Oil with us. We would have been an under developed country had it not been for France and Russia.

So, no we are not held hostage to anybody. We have our own policies and our foreign vendors have helped us out way better than anybody else.

The LCA project is currently flying today only because a foreign vendor called the United States of America has provided us with engines.

The most important fact is you guys consider military relations and military equipment as a major source of the foreign nations trying to control us. You are COMPLETELY WRONG. Even if we build the most powerful fighter, the most powerful tank, the most powerful soldier they will still control us as long as we do not control the WORLD ECONOMY. Yeah. How's that for facts?

Anybody who controls the Banking System(World Bank, IMF) controls the world. Even today after 20 years, Russia is still well controlled by the United States, even though they have a capable military industry.

Open your eyes. There is more to the world than just a tank or a gun.

And there is no easy way out of this, most of the weapons systems we are developing is for the first time, we have to improve upon them. there is no other way out. If we keep ridiculing our own products, then our (tax payer's) hard earned money will be used to fill coffers of the foreign companies and it was/is/will be used to arm twist us.

China will not wait for us to fix our house. Even if we do, they will not care for LCA. They will work on countering the FGFA, MRCA and MKI.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Typical desi looking at the neighbours plate

I apologise unreservedly for the comment. Sorry.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

what is happening here?? just because ACM says something (which he has retracted since) why so much anger, disdain, antipathy towards LCA?? no analysis based on facts, only rhetorical rants!! amazing!! oh yes, i forgot it is India. sorry.

LCA is in IOC stage now. post IOC induction there are still factors to be validated which would happen from now till it reaches FOC or IOW combat ready. as ACM said himself of "wake penetraion test" which is very important particularly when flown in formations when one crosses the other's wake. this also means FCS needs to be validated which is a logical follow up!!! besides BVR integration, cannon validation, unguided rockets to be fired and ofcourse PGMs. though not comparable in range and payload capacity. LCA will give a run for money to even MMRCA birds in defence role.

what's wrong with people here?? every aircraft goes thro' this and which is natural. only issue is of THUST which will be taken care of. why "underpower" or "not enough thrust" been a factor for Mirages?? jaguars?? why is it applicable to an LCA?? why LCA is being questioned at IOC stage?? surprising to say the least.

LCA mark 1 is a logical necessity to lead to LCA mark 2 and AMCA later. no escape here to any designer or manufacturer. besides it is not just about LCA but rather about setting a base for design, development, production, testing, validation and certification processes. huge is an understatement.

every aircraft is a compromise of various parameters. one chooses according to one's requirement. IAF was never serious about the whole thing. they gave their ASR only in 1985 with R60 as their wvr missile when the project itself was given nod in 1993!!! they changed it to R-73 later which necessitated changes wrt pylons and stress factor and aerodynamics of the A/C. some in IAF (not officially) never thought it would even fly what with established manufacturers(american) even warning the IAF not to fly it. this story, was brought to the notice only when LCA flew, by none other than the then DM george fernades!!! it was only post the first flight and validation of indian FBW/CLAW that IAF started taking a keener interest when they appointed a team under Nanjappa(IAF man) to see/superwise the day to day affairs at ASTE.



now LCA initially was looked at as a Mig 21 replacement but LCA has outgrown that. there is no comparison on any parameter.

LCA is more closer to Mirage 2000 as of now and would be closer to/equal to an upgraded Mirages when Mark 2 comes online (when a higher thrust is made available via F414). it is always a trade off. some parameters of LCA are better and some for Mirages are better like for ex -

RCS of LCA will be way lower both due to it's size and composites - an advantage in both BVR/WVR.

Mirages have nine (9) hard points vs eight (8) of LCA.

there was a video where LCA test pilot speaks of a range/radius closer to Mirage 2000. will post if i find it.

Mirage's slightly higher range due to more internal fuel is offset by a higher SFC factor as below -

M53 P2 ENGINE.


"¢ A/B specific fuel consumption (kg/daN.h)------ ----2.10

"¢ Dry engine thrust specific
fuel consumption (kg/daN.h) ------------------------0.90

"¢ Weight (lb) ----------------------------------3,340

http://www.snecma.com/IMG/files/m53p2_ang_modulvoir_file_fr.pdf

now compare that to GE 404 family of engines A/B thrust SFA does not exceed 1.85!! and weight less than 2400 kg.

http://www.geae.com/engines/military/comparison_turbofan.html

GE414 sfc is not seen on the site but note this -





http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/f414.htm

IOW LCA will have more range due to less consumption of fuel due to a better engine.

here is an interesting piece -



http://www.mirage-jet.com/Propulsion/M53/m53.HTM

a must read (a reference to Mirage 2000 too, thanks - the great HARRY) - http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/downloads/Tejas-Radiance.pdf



more for aero shows!!!

compare a similar delta to delta. are they sustainable?? if yes how long??

a sustained high ALPHA wont be more than 20-28 particularly for a compound delta like a LCA. a canard delta wing may afford a better AOA but one can't sustain it. problem with all deltas is the drag factor they face due to the huge wings acting against thrust in AOA maneure - meaning a bleed of energy, loss of fuel. delta wing aircrafts though good for a dog fight will lose out in STR regime which would be common in any dog fight. that is why they are good as high speed interceptors.

in a dog fight between an F-16 and an M2K, if M2K can take a first BVR shot it will also be the first to run away. it will never enter a dog fight in STR regime.



when one is banking for a turn which is a precursor to STR, AOA and thrust is what affords it.



nose pitching up has more to do with the centre of gravity of a particular aircraft. if CG is aft of centre the aircraft will pitch up.



??

in a flight most lift is produced by the wings. in AOA maneure lift coefficient (LC) increases with pitch up angle upto to a critical angle (which is stall angle for that aircraft) beyond which any pitch up reduces the LC drastically due to separation of boundary layer which stalls the wings and engine stall thereafter leading to many times - unrecoverable spin and possibly a crash and a fatal result (unless the pilot ejects).



so how much of a disadvantage do you think it is?? can you list it out?? particularly when a compound delta will avoid getting into a STR in a dog fight.

tactics!! every design has plusses and minusses and tactics are evolved around it accordingly. besides is 24 AOA for LCA is final??



do you have figures for LCA AOA without the FBW ALPHA LIMITER?? if yes do share. if not why shoot in the dark??

each aircraft is thouroughly tested in wind tunnels for this. depending on its shape of the wings/fuselage/control surfaces, an "optimum" AOA is derived which the FBW will limit it to. if one wants to exceed for a short duration he has to disengage the FBW and go manual - normal for most.



AOA is the angle between the line of momentum of the craft and the chord line of the wing. IMO it does not matter whether it is horizontal or vertical plane. it would still be AOA only - though sustained in a turn and as comparisons are made wrt to the others deg/sec is used to gauge which has a shorter turn radius.

Sir-- Please-- we are talking of LCA as it is now. We would have been proud if it had been used to validate technology. Not thrust on IAF. Your optimism stems from what will happen in the future.. Of course it is good to be optimistic. But have a balance please. LCA AOA? WHY ARE TALKING OF THINGS ada DOESN'T KNOW themselves or even if they know have never divulged.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

I say ---

1. Mark 1 is a tech demonstrator. Confine it to the ADA labs. Validate and improve on it. Well done to the scientists
2. Immediately cease all plans to induct Mark 1. Its a waste of time energy and budget and focus and human resources.
3. Get the Mark 2 to fly by end of 2012. Make this an agenda of national improtance. The Mark 2 must fly with AESA and Mayawi and ASTRA.
4. Anything less is a sheer waste of tax payers money .
5. LCA mark 2 flying for IOC in 2016 without AESA,without Astra and mayawi is a catastrope, LCA mark 2 flying for IOC in 2016 with AESA,astra and mayawi maybe a morale booster for the ADA and DRDO but morale sapper for the IAF.

I appreciate the efforts in development but I deplore the pressure to accept half baked products. IAF expected and waited for LCA but it is disappointed. deserves a lot better. The nation and IAF has waited too long and spent too much with 3000%(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) INCREASE IN BUDGET for very very little and late.

 

[blade]

LCA cannot beat PLAAF or even PAF. The MKIs and MRCA can.

After the induction of JH 17 & f 16 blk 50 even mig's & mirages cannot defeat PAF only MRCA & MKI can. So why IAF is still using them? why cant all these junks be dumped for the time being until the up gradation process completes ( hiring several accessories of Tejas !!! what an irony ).And if Mig 21 can be used , jaguar can be used , mig 27 can be used , mig 29 can be used without a good radar , poor engine , weak BVR then why not LCA mk I ? If these mentioned russian & french junks can be up graded so can be Tejas mk-I. It will be minimum 2018 before all the IAF junks are upgraded & by that time a much more capable Tejas will be roaring in the sky with kaveri project nearing its true completion.

All big powers make top rate stuff. If there was something better available, they would grab it with both hands.

You were asked a question and i expected u to answer it. If u did'nt know the answer then just say u dont orelse tell clearly that u give a damn to what i ask you but what u have done in this post is just playing with words. i again repeat my question Why did china choose locally built cheap inferior copies of Su 30 i.e j 11 when they had the option to buy better stuff from russia? By the way what are the top fighters u can remember built by gr8 powers apart from US & USSR of 4th gen ?

Sure. Our elders always say Dream big.

Once again you side lined the questions asked to you.Please stop pretending like u r attempting to reply me. read the questions and kindly enlighten us with direct clear cut answer.Defence is no literature where we can go on playing with words.

LCA Mk1 does not fullfill requirements in thrust and payload. The shifting of goal posts is done by every single capable air force in the world. Requirements change by every passing day. This happened to F-22 too and is continuously happening to the F-35 too.

There is no project in the world which has seen more requirements changes than the F-35 in the last 100 years of flying.

Nice example indeed. You have made my effort easier with this example. True that both F 22 & F 35 have seen a lot of quick fixes with its requirement part. and can you tell me what's the final effect of that? The result of this shifting goal posts gave rise to one of the most criticized projects carried out by USAF in the last 100 years of flying history. F - 22 & F 35 (to certain extent) has a generational edge which kept them alive.
People often miss out a very vital issue on Tejas i.e the "sudden" technological denial. Many countries passed through this phase of tech denial just like china but that was nothing SUDDEN but for us it was like a bolt from the blue. US denial simply scrapped years of hard word on project management, fusion & chronology of the project wasting lots of money. Many new testing facilities had to be set up. We had to make some vital semiconductor chips in house which was not a part of the project "Tejas" in its initial shape.
Are u sure its T:W ratio is poorer than that of mig 21's? or say do u think mig 21's have better g pull or AoA compared to tejas mk I? If not then whats the issue with tejas mk I induction? after all filthy poor tejas will only replace mig 21s so whats the issue?

Yes. And they are right. LCA cannot yet handle Air superiority missions. Both IOC and FOC jets will have less than required sustained turn rates.

When you say " yes they are right " u sound too much of cock sure. How do i know mig 21's have a better turn rate , g pull & & AoA? What if the corrupted IAF colluding with GOI and acting pedagogic on LCA? why dont we have a comparative trial between mig 21 + mig 29 (non upgraded )+M2K vs Tejas and see the report with our eyes for both bvr & wvr ?.

IAF will not risk their pilots and ground crews for that. You are being naive.

U have faith on our defence journalists & on our top level defence officials, very well show that no body can be more naive than what u already are.I will not be surprised to see that a few jets are sabotaged to result in massive accidents so that they are never inducted.

Its ROAR is a MEOW. Only Mk2 fits requirements. It is the only platform that can power the radar, avionics and EW at the required levels.

Mk1 is just a prototype(including FOC) which is being inducted in squadron numbers.

MEOW it will certainly make within the Def officers kitchen ...kioon ki inlogo ki kala paisa se pakaya geya kheer chat na hai isee ...Restttttttt all GRRRRRRR all the way to the sky.

 

[nitesh]

Severe, severe deficiencies. It is a real Mig-21++.

What was the original goal of building it?

When it was inducted it was one of the best in the world. When LCA was inducted it was equal to the JF-17, aka, one of the worst in the world.

Ha ha ha a plane which could not do ground attack or any other weapon while induction been promoted as "best in the world". Why it was inducted then? Oh I forget may be they wanted to waste the tax payer's money. This is getting amazing. LCA and JF 17 are in same weight class, and built on the same philosophy, a cheap bird which can be fielded in numbers.

If you build a really good beast and then you have to work on it, then that is understandable. But if you work on something that is low tech and then say we need to work on it, its called a Failure.

So now a widow maker which was not able to do most the things which is was designed for after 2 decades of service is a really good beast? Are we talking sense here?

Yes. It was never strategic independence. Previously all European countries including Sweden made their own aircraft. France, Sweden, Germany, England etc had their own aircraft development. They did not go for the F-15 because they believed in developing something better. Today, Rafale and EF-2000 are indeed better than the F-15s.

Why they did on there own? Care to explain? And why not they bought F 15 and improved over it? They could have saved lot of tax payer's money in that process. And now they could have been getting F 35.

But look at the LCA. Is it being built to be better than all the above aircraft? NO. It is just a replacement for Mig-21. Even that does not full fill requirements.

Now you are twisting the facts, was LCA developed to be better then these aircrafts? LCA has demonstrated certain capabilities so it is getting inducted, and some are yet to be demonstrated for which the process is on. Every plane goes through his process, examples have been given. Is it so difficult to understand?

It has nothing to do with the LCA. Our program has more to do with replacement than build up strategic independence. Even after LCA porject is a complete success. It will never in a million years be the core aircraft of the IAF. IAF will still import until such time ADA is able to build an aircraft that is a world beater.

Again, was LCA supposed to be the primary air craft of IAF? I did not find any such statements coming from any one except you. If you have seen such statements coming from DRDO/IAF please enlighten me.

But MKI was designed to be the best air superiority fighter in the world, short of the Su-35 and Raptor. LCA is nothing compared to that. Bring LCA to those standards and IAF will wait, Eagerly.

I explained previously what i was trying to say, don't twist the statement.

F-35 changed so many times, its going to end up a completely new aircraft. ASR's change every few years with changing environment. It is a fact. And IAF has inducted sub standard aircraft. Isn't that good enough?

No, nothing good, as explained previously this is how it is done across the globe.

It was given in time. Similar to T-90 ToT.

So didn't they able to delay the program?

IAF cannot spare tankers simply because LCA does not have long legs. Using Force multipliers to hide deficiencies is being stupid. IAF has clearly mentioned they don't want less range or less payload for more power. They want the same range, same payload for more power.

So, IAF policy is that tankers is only for MKI, because all other planes are short legged as compared to MKI. So other planes are not supposed to have tanker facility? I didn't noticed such a policy even exist, may be some thing new, if you can enlighten me on this it will be great.

Cool. Spinoffs helped IAF make their teeth sharper. But here, we are not talking about bits and pieces. LCA's mission computer is used to power a beast. But as a system the LCA Mk1 is a little cat.

LCA is a small air craft.

Even after LCA succeeds we will still be hostage to foreign whims and fancies. The best part is the foreign whims and fancies have helped us more than any other thing in the world. We had military relations with USSR, they vetoed every single decision made against India in return.

Oh, what they did in 1962, India is our friend but Chinese are our brothers.

We had military relations with France, they were the only power other than Russia that supported our Nuclear tests.

France stopped us from modifying the Mirages to drop LGB while kargil war was on. They stopped the spare supplies too.

Without the above relations we would have been under major sanctions even today. We would have had so many sanctions we would have been a North Korea or a Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The only trade we would have had is something like oil for food program or some humanitarian assistance under the UN. No country would have traded Oil with us. We would have been an under developed country had it not been for France and Russia.

There is always give and take in relations, Well some examples have been given above to explain how we have been treated at the time of need.

So, no we are not held hostage to anybody. We have our own policies and our foreign vendors have helped us out way better than anybody else.

The LCA project is currently flying today only because a foreign vendor called the United States of America has provided us with engines.

Isn't our CLAW team was thrown out unceremoniously after nuclear test, which added to considerable delays. More examples needed?

The most important fact is you guys consider military relations and military equipment as a major source of the foreign nations trying to control us. You are COMPLETELY WRONG. Even if we build the most powerful fighter, the most powerful tank, the most powerful soldier they will still control us as long as we do not control the WORLD ECONOMY. Yeah. How's that for facts?
Anybody who controls the Banking System(World Bank, IMF) controls the world. Even today after 20 years, Russia is still well controlled by the United States, even though they have a capable military industry. Open your eyes. There is more to the world than just a tank or a gun.

What is the way out? Isn't our economy is building up? Isn't because of our constant endeavor to build our military muscle and economy is brining fruits? So what about Japan, one of the largest economy (2nd or 3rd) without any significant military to show off. Or for that matter South Korea. They are well known US peddles. An independent and self sustaining mil-ind complex is key to having an independent foreign policy.

China will not wait for us to fix our house. Even if we do, they will not care for LCA. They will work on countering the FGFA, MRCA and MKI.

You are speaking as such, all the military budget has been allocated to induct LCA's and everything else has been stopped. And why they will not worry from LCA? Is there is a difference in the missile fired from LCA and MKI or what? The point is, each and every air craft has it's roles.

 

[p2prada]

After the induction of JH 17 & f 16 blk 50 even mig's & mirages cannot defeat PAF only MRCA & MKI can. So why IAF is still using them? why cant all these junks be dumped for the time being until the up gradation process completes ( hiring several accessories of Tejas !!! what an irony ).And if Mig 21 can be used , jaguar can be used , mig 27 can be used , mig 29 can be used without a good radar , poor engine , weak BVR then why not LCA mk I ? If these mentioned russian & french junks can be up graded so can be Tejas mk-I. It will be minimum 2018 before all the IAF junks are upgraded & by that time a much more capable Tejas will be roaring in the sky with kaveri project nearing its true completion.

Except MKI and MRCA all are legacy fighters which will be retired by 2025 at most. At the time Mig-29, Mirage-2000, Mig-21Bison, Jaguar etc were purchased, they were the best of their time. It will take 2 or 3 years before all those "junks" are upgraded and they will still end up being better than LCA Mk1.

Tejas Mk1 cannot be upgraded without upgrading its engines. Both IAF and ADA have stated a new engine is required. That's why the Mk2 has been proposed.

Mk1 does not have the required sustained turn rate or the required thrust. Without STR you cannot get into dog fights, without thrust you cannot power the electronics along with flying optimally.

ADA said they will fix everything in the interim by reducing Payload and Range using the same F-404. IAF told them to F*** Off. IAF asked for everything to be as it is and re-engine it but at the same payload and range. ADA said Ok. And thus MK2 was born. But in the mean time ADA told IAF to please induct the Mk1s for flight system optimization and avionics integration. Somehow, it became 2 squadrons.

You were asked a question and i expected u to answer it. If u did'nt know the answer then just say u dont orelse tell clearly that u give a damn to what i ask you but what u have done in this post is just playing with words. i again repeat my question Why did china choose locally built cheap inferior copies of Su 30 i.e j 11 when they had the option to buy better stuff from russia? By the way what are the top fighters u can remember built by gr8 powers apart from US & USSR of 4th gen ?

China is communist. They have that prestige thing stuck in their heads. They believed they could strip and build the Flanker in a second. They made bad policies that affected Russian Chinese future deals. China then tried buying Phalcon AWACS and other electronics systems and radars from Israel and Europe. But they were immediately sanctioned by US.

Right now, Europe cannot sell due to American sanctions. Russia will not sell due to copyright infringement. So, the Chinese are on their own. They are doing well because they can pour a lot of money into many different projects at once.

Once again you side lined the questions asked to you.Please stop pretending like u r attempting to reply me. read the questions and kindly enlighten us with direct clear cut answer.Defence is no literature where we can go on playing with words.

MKI timeline. Google it. This has nothing to do with LCA. Fact is MKI at the time was the most ADVANCED Super Fighter in operation.

Even in 2020, LCA will not be that.

Nice example indeed. You have made my effort easier with this example. True that both F 22 & F 35 have seen a lot of quick fixes with its requirement part. and can you tell me what's the final effect of that? The result of this shifting goal posts gave rise to one of the most criticized projects carried out by USAF in the last 100 years of flying history. F - 22 & F 35 (to certain extent) has a generational edge which kept them alive.

Both F-22 and F-35 are 2 generations ahead of the LCA. So, what are you implying?

People often miss out a very vital issue on Tejas i.e the "sudden" technological denial. Many countries passed through this phase of tech denial just like china but that was nothing SUDDEN but for us it was like a bolt from the blue. US denial simply scrapped years of hard word on project management, fusion & chronology of the project wasting lots of money. Many new testing facilities had to be set up. We had to make some vital semiconductor chips in house which was not a part of the project "Tejas" in its initial shape.

So? This only indicates LCA is sub standard which it is. Even after FOC it will be substandard.

Are u sure its T:W ratio is poorer than that of mig 21's? or say do u think mig 21's have better g pull or AoA compared to tejas mk I? If not then whats the issue with tejas mk I induction? after all filthy poor tejas will only replace mig 21s so whats the issue?

Mig-21Bison is a more mature platform than the LCA. Specifications aside, the Bison will complete all its mission objectives without issues compared to LCA.

Compare LCA with Gripen not Mig-21Bison.

When you say " yes they are right " u sound too much of cock sure. How do i know mig 21's have a better turn rate , g pull & & AoA? What if the corrupted IAF colluding with GOI and acting pedagogic on LCA? why dont we have a comparative trial between mig 21 + mig 29 (non upgraded )+M2K vs Tejas and see the report with our eyes for both bvr & wvr ?.

When we are in the 21st century, we don't want an aircraft that will be a tad bit better than the Mig-21Bison. It has to be atleast at the level of a Gripen.

Tejas will fail in all mission parameters even after FOC.

U have faith on our defence journalists & on our top level defence officials, very well show that no body can be more naive than what u already are.I will not be surprised to see that a few jets are sabotaged to result in massive accidents so that they are never inducted.

Did I not already post reports by a retired Air Marshal and an in service Admiral, both saying LCA Mk1 is not what they want. These are not my words. If you believe the Admiral and Marshal are both naive then be my guest.

 

[p2prada]

What was the original goal of building it?

To follow ASR.

Ha ha ha a plane which could not do ground attack or any other weapon while induction been promoted as "best in the world". Why it was inducted then? Oh I forget may be they wanted to waste the tax payer's money. This is getting amazing. LCA and JF 17 are in same weight class, and built on the same philosophy, a cheap bird which can be fielded in numbers.

You are talking about GB and Germany here. They are the pioneers of everything. If they work on something they are not wasting tax payers money.

LCA is supposed to fill ASR, not simply fly.

So now a widow maker which was not able to do most the things which is was designed for after 2 decades of service is a really good beast? Are we talking sense here?

A brief and closed chapter. This was a problem. LCa's problems cannot be fixed without starting the Mk2.

Why they did on there own? Care to explain? And why not they bought F 15 and improved over it? They could have saved lot of tax payer's money in that process. And now they could have been getting F 35.

You are talking about GB and Germany here. They are the pioneers of everything. If they work on something they are not wasting tax payers money.

And they are getting F-35, at least GB is.

Now you are twisting the facts, was LCA developed to be better then these aircrafts? LCA has demonstrated certain capabilities so it is getting inducted, and some are yet to be demonstrated for which the process is on. Every plane goes through his process, examples have been given. Is it so difficult to understand?

Fill ASR properly. Then we will talk. If LCA does not fit ASR, then it cannot be used for anything, including replacing Mig-21s.

Again, was LCA supposed to be the primary air craft of IAF? I did not find any such statements coming from any one except you. If you have seen such statements coming from DRDO/IAF please enlighten me.

ASR.

I explained previously what i was trying to say, don't twist the statement.

You are comparing accomplished birds to LCA. There is nothing to twist.

Notice that IAF had inducted only 1 squadron of Su-30k and then replaced it in 4 years with the MKI. But LCA Mk1 will remain the same even after FOC. LCA will still not clear ASR. A second squadron was not required.

No, nothing good, as explained previously this is how it is done across the globe.

But LCA still does not fit ASR.

So didn't they able to delay the program?

You are talking about DELAY with LCA? Hahahahaha!

LCa was supposed to fly in 1990. Then it was supposed to fly in 1996. But it only flew in 2001. So, are you still talking about delay?

So, IAF policy is that tankers is only for MKI, because all other planes are short legged as compared to MKI. So other planes are not supposed to have tanker facility? I didn't noticed such a policy even exist, may be some thing new, if you can enlighten me on this it will be great.

As usual you twist everything you say by yourself. The tankers are never available 24/7. Only 6 tankers for 1000 fighters, get the point. Even MKIs will never have access to tankers contantly. At least MKIs will manage without tankers, but LCA cannot unless the Mk2 has major design changes.

LCA is a small air craft.

And it still does not full fill ASR.

Oh, what they did in 1962, India is our friend but Chinese are our brothers.

They did interfere. US definitely did and so did USSR.

France stopped us from modifying the Mirages to drop LGB while kargil war was on. They stopped the spare supplies too.

It was for a very tiny period. France never stopped us modifying the aircraft because the aircraft was eventually modified. Stopping spares supplies for 4 weeks isn't a big deal.

There is always give and take in relations, Well some examples have been given above to explain how we have been treated at the time of need.

Had it not been for USSR and France, we would have been eating Grass now.

Isn't our CLAW team was thrown out unceremoniously after nuclear test, which added to considerable delays. More examples needed?

Then why did LCA team go to US for help if the fighter was supposed to be indigenous?

What is the way out? Isn't our economy is building up? Isn't because of our constant endeavor to build our military muscle and economy is brining fruits? So what about Japan, one of the largest economy (2nd or 3rd) without any significant military to show off. Or for that matter South Korea. They are well known US peddles. An independent and self sustaining mil-ind complex is key to having an independent foreign policy.

Japan is a dead duck. It has no real growth or pull in international circles. Imagine a country like Russia and it still bends backwards whenever US intervenes. Poland is getting its ABM shield and Europe cannot be held hostage by Russia through Gas. All because of US.

You are speaking as such, all the military budget has been allocated to induct LCA's and everything else has been stopped. And why they will not worry from LCA? Is there is a difference in the missile fired from LCA and MKI or what? The point is, each and every air craft has it's roles.

If the Chinese work out a way to stop MKI and MRCA, it will automatically mean LCA is taken care of. Duh!

A huge proportion of the IAF budget is going for an aircraft that is not going to fullfill ASR even after 2012. It's a waste of time to induct it. One squadron was ok like the Su-30k squadron before going for MKIs. But why 2 for the same purpose and for apparently no reason. IAF wants the Mk2 anyway. So, IOC and FOC for Mk2 will start all over again from 2014.

A foreign engine does not help indigenous efforts. If the US stops supplying spares, then the entire project will fail until Kaveri is ready. So, there is no real difference between LCA, MKI or MRCA wherever IAF is concerned.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[pmaitra]

Stopping spares supplies for 4 weeks isn't a big deal.

Not quite IMHO. I'm sure most would agree that India's greatest military victory was the Bangaldesh Liberation War on 1971-72. Indian Army's direct involvement was only for 13 days. The instrument of surrender was signed on the 14th day, from the day Indian Army marched into East Pakistan.

A delay of 4 weeks is too much. In my books, a delay of even 4 days can be catastrophic.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Nope. http://kuku.sawf.org/News/56436.aspx This is for both N-LCA as well as AF LCA.

Thanks, any better source than VK Thakur? One time this person had entire rant against Anjun centered around its imaginary1000HP engine.

I am not basing my argument only with the above link. This is what IAF has asked for.Excerpt from FORCE magazine...........

We are back to speculations. Mr Rajkumar said this, that and all and Mr Baweja said back in 2009 "LCA MK-2 will be bigger, canard coupled powerful jet". If you sum it up then as per Baweja MK-2 will a M-MRCA. Now fact is neither Mr Baweja nor P Rajkumar has any say in LCA MK-2 now. Ex HAL chief even did not had any when he was in service and Mr Rajkumar is no more AFO. So basically what they are saying is their wishlist with "Should be" "That's How". Till this date IAF has not commented on Mk-2, all they say "we are not happy with LCA with present engine and will buy more only when LCA is re-engined and meets its requirements". And ADA so far has not said anything other proposing complete makeover(internal) of LCA in MK-2(about which i had mentioned in earlier post) in addition to ".....new engine will meet IAF requirements". Talk regarding nose cone, LEVCON etc is not even official statement but a copy paste from test document. Meaning nothing official about them either.

There are so much speculations about MK-2 that it is hard to believe if they are talking about same jet. Said all, i repeat I will not believe on statements that MK-2 will be radically different version(airframe wise) of LCA and will continue believing that MK-1 MLU = MK-2, least till either ADA or IAF clears the air.

LCA Mk1 is worth 200 Crores, that's $43Million. For 40 planes that's nearly $2Billion. Lifecycle costs, ground personal, pilots, bases all not included. For a force operation on a budget of $10Billion every year, you just took out $2Billion. And some how that does not affect operational preparedness.

What about keeping 2 squadrons of IAF empty, compromising all important point air defense need along border? IAF is not idiot to undermine that and has already taken action by buying one more MK-1 squadron. They are more qualified than any to judge what is going help them in what and how.

LCA cannot replace Jaguars. LCA can only replace Mig-21s. And that's what is happening. Let's talk about Jaguars after LCA Mk2 is in business. From the above article from FORCE, if LCA Mk2 is granted IOC by 2016 then FOC is 2018. Most realistic date without counting delays. 2018.

Theoretically it can. Even 1 LCA squadron can replace 1 Mig-21 squadron and 1 Jaguar squadron in role wise. But decision has to be taken by IAF as nobody else can. Order for second squadron came after LCA testing reached a level. I will not be surprised if IAF orders one more squadron by time LCA approaches FOC.

Like i had said, there is nothing from ADA or IAF on scale of modification in Mk-2 and instead of going wild with my speculations i will wait until at least till AI-11. There will be a presentation on MK-2 by ADA. Detailed and official information on Mk-2 is very expected. On side not, it's the scale of modification which will decide time to IOC and FOC.

Do you see us shooting intruding Chinese soldiers or firing back at the Pakistanis every time they break a cease fire. There is such a thing called restraint. Mature powers tend to show that.

Oh yes there is. But when enemy approaches close to striking distance interceptors are sent to stop them and force them out. And interception doesn't always means engaging with weapons. USN had and has long range radars and had specially developed interceptors named F-14s to intercept any approaching and sniffing flying object close to battle group. F-14s were purposefully developed to intercept any Russian jet or bomber and force them out and they did multiple times. Your example of Flankers flying over carrier can only be true if USN had failed to detect and track them. Something which can happen only in case when their radars were not functioning as they should have. Or they simply failed to live upto claim something which is often translated as "Performance Guarantee".

Somehow Air force is not interested in LCA Mk1. And LCA Mk2 will not have only a ew engine. It will have a 2 year design stage, which is HUGE.

Yes they are not fully satisfied with MK-1. But they still see it as useful and have gone ahead with buying second squadron.

Yes Pushing a new larger engine is a huge task and will take time.

Cheers.

Quite cheap to say one time. From me "Three Cheers" instead. Can't do any less because at least there is one poster which can say. Look IAF, you people are wrong, what you saying "even in present configuration LCA is far advanced replacement of Mig-21" is rubbish second squadron is useless......40 pilots wasted one base wasted......2 squadron pushed to your throats and you don't know.

Three Cheers again.

Will never happen. During war there is no guarantee you will always out number the enemy. Any defending force will be smaller than the offensive force, almost always.

This is not 1971, IAF's LRTRs tracks almost everything flying upto 400-500 kms inside Pakistan. Anyway in any BVR combat F-16 Block 50s of PAF will eat any jet of IAF even M-MRCA if it is non american. F-16s radar is awesome and AMRAAM is even far better than any IAF has, what about this? Here logic used is similar to your's "west is best". By the way, LCA is said to have much smaller RCS and will have equally good BVR with MKIs and AEW&C will only add to that. And if your statement "superior tactics used by IAF Mig-21s in bringing down american jets during war games" is true then, oo la la, this time IAF will have Mig-21 ++.

Yes it is true that that there is no guarantee but there is always a guarantee that LCA will engage F-16s by firing BVR, enough to F-16s trouble.

However, we some how managed to fix LGBs on Mirage-2000 and bring them down effectively in Kargil in less than one month. Best part, Mirage-2000's new configuration was not even in the drawing board before the war started.

This is an overrated excuse. During war OEM is out to prove its hardware. They will give all the help possible.

Mirage-2000Hs very much had 'ATLIS' laser designation pod and Matra 1000Lb LGBs before Kargil. Only thing IAF did was managing things together. They even had Pavaway II kits which they fixed on existing 1000LB bombs. Even Israel is said to have great hand in that.

Said all, these doesn't represent trouble i had spoken about. There was a huge requirement of Bofors SPH's spares and country like Sweden as expected had imposed ban on any kind to export of defence hardware. And if we go in war again with Gripen expect Sweden to behave do different.

DRDO feeds of the defence budget, that is investment enough. Also, investment is not guaranteed. Ask any company related to R&D and they will tell you that. R&D is the most risky part of business.

Rather on very LIMITED portion of defence budget.

This was in the past when supply and spares had to come from half way around the world. It used to take 2 weeks just for delivery and consignments coming from outside have to pass certain bureaucratic procedures before they are made available.

But now, All Supply and Spares for MMRCA and MKI will be made in India. So, that is no longer an issue.

Don't know why FONA uttered this " extremely hard to maintain them" recently? Leaving that, it is still not clear if americans will share Radar codes with us. And Europeans, lets wait and watch. BTW for some reason MKIs have been sent to Russia for up-gradation and only when examples return the HAL will get its hands wet.

If something goes wrong with LCA's engine, then the Americans will take their own sweet time too. So, LCA's in the same boat as MRCA. Just that MRCA come under contractual agreements that have higher investments and the OEM will be "extra" careful in order to prevent loss of business. GE engines are nothing in that respect......With a foreign engine, it is worse than an imported jet. So, no comparisons.

Oh yes definitely. But it is being said that GTRE SENECMA JV engine will be ready by 2016, so there will be a replacement when need will arise. Since design is our own we know how to modify engine bay and put them. But can we do that in MRCA?

And big business has nothing to do with that as it is the government which regulates what and how much an OEM can do. If Sweden says no SAAB can't do any.

LCA's equipped with strike package will always have fighter escort. Heck even Mirage-2000s had fighter escort during Kargil both Mig-29 as well as A to A equipped Mirage-2000s.

Yet, like Mirage, LCA has every bit of A2A in it. And in situation like said their own type can become escort something which can't happen in Jaguar's case. Depending upon the tactics in spite of sending more LCAs as escort, IAF can send all of them in multirole configuration, something which again can't happen in Jaguar's case.

The ones we are buying come with the guarantee that they work. Time tested equipment from time tested OEMs. F-16 crashes was just a chapter in its development.

I don't think when F-16s were sold it was any different and its manufacturer was any either. IAnd if i am not wrong F-16s were never sold with "No Guarantee" tag. In fact F-16s were widely sold yelling superior performance, guaranteed combat superiority, zero compromise and blah blah blah. Yet something like that happened on such large scale.

We are looking for Multirole aircraft in the long run. So, even MKi as well as MMRCA can perform CAS if required.

So can B-52s....... There are multiple reasons why relatively cheap jets are used for CAS specially when there is no dedicated platform available. One among many in relatively less acquisition cost, operational cost and cost of spares.

Not the ones in the MRCA. Perhaps FGFA but not MRCA. MRCA are already flying successfully in all OEM air forces.

Yes it does. Each except F-16 is equally old as F-16s was when it was falling out of sky. What less, versions of the said jets are exactly not what they were when they got into service. Lot of changes they have went through since then.

I am talking about the system. Even if you want to invest in a college for MBA, would you choose a startup or IIM? My question is just that. Everything else after that is merely hypothetical. If you join the startup and after 20 years the startup college has become better than IIMs. That point is hypothetical.

I rather answer it like, i'll always choose IIM over Harward.

So, ADA becoming as good as Sukhoi is equally hypothetical.

Indeed hypothetical but quite possible in the sense with continuous support it will start fulfilling needs of IAF exactly the way required.

Long term relationships can break like Titanic on an iceberg in a second. That's what I meant when I talked about YF-22 and YF-23. USAF dumped Boeing faster than ever even after a 50 year productive relationship.This has nothing to do with Luxury. If you force an inferior product then you will only get an inferior service. Build up your product to a point where it will no longer be an inferior product. That has nothing to do with Luxury. I am not asking you to build a 6th gen fighter from scratch. You have read Adm's interview from FORCE. He talks about an almost new fighter. Build that because that's what IAF needs. Not this Mig-21++.

Yes, but USAF selected another American not any non american. They have this luxury but they did not invited any from outside. They could have asked BAE to part in competition and field prototypes but they did not. Does it means that they compromised with quality or BAE had no capability to challenge YF-23, YF-22?

Back to real point. You are into belief that IAF has no use yet it was forced to buy extra MK-1. I say, IAF has use that is why it is buying and spending 2 billion. By the way P Rajkuamr is taking about 'wish' and 'could be' so did A Baweja but its worthless until and unless either IAF or ADA confirms it.

If LCA Mk2 is set to arrive after 2018 and inducted only in 2020, then I don't see why MMRCA would be a waste of time.

M-MRCA is a need, not at all waste of time. It is being bought to cater different need. Fact is IAF needs L-MRCA irrespective of M-MRCA even H-MRCA. IAF can neither buy 800 MKIs nor its needs gets fulfilled alone by that much M-MRCAs and neither can +1000 LCA fulfill that requirements. What IAF needs is a mix force of all three.

By the way you can continue on with your views about MK-1 but fact is MK-1 is joining Airforce when IAF is saying "32 left and counting(down)".

 

[civfanatic]

Even our LCA Mk1 is able to take on any Pakistani fighter besides the F-16 blk52, am I wrong?

 

[Rahul Singh]

Read what Nitesh has written(which by far is the best post in this thread) and watch the video. Then what, just watch video and see if there is [as said] a "Visibly Upset ACM" or a composed ACM speaking truth ?

When people are blindly running around claiming LCA inducted with "severe deficiencies" and trying to show it as waste of money and all that are conveniently forgetting/not aware how other fighters got inducted in other countries for ex. when EF was inducted it was called as treancahe 1 which was not able to field any BVR weapons or ground attack weapons, even now Tranache 2 is not certified to do ground attack. But it was inducted to get experience with the machine. When F 16 was inducted it was termed as "widow maker" but US air force stuck with that and improved over it despite having severe deficiencies persisted with it even in gulf war time. And now it is the one of the most successful fighter around the world. If only there forces could have acted as hard nosed customers and kept delaying the induction these machines could not have been called as successful project.

 

[Armand2REP]

What is LCA's MMR for mk1? Is it Elta or Indian?