ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

This is what I do not like, you keep repeating same stuff over and over again. I must say just the way you had no idea about ROT and wingloading, you are wrong about L/D ratio also. can you please explain to me how L/D ratio affects performance of a jet engined ac and what is the diff between min drag speed and max reserve of power speed of a jet ac. How do they effect the ability of a jet fighter?

And my humble request to you. Pls do not post anything regarding F-16XL. That crap is long forgotten with advancements in tech and aerodynamics. It may have been what you claim in 1986, but now it is as obsolete as piston engine fighters.

It is exactly what I don't like about the way you argue,

When confronted with something authentic that you can't refuse , you start asking questions about what is this and what is that?

And since you can not say anything categorical about the superior specs of higher swept back angle wing F-16 Xl compared to lower swept back angle of F-16 A, you call everything about F-16 XL is a BS!!!!!!

I was correct about L/D ratio(not the length to diameter ratio, but the Lift to Drag ratio which I was explaining in the past few posts that too using the authoritative analogy of F-16 XL!!!!!!)

Wing loading is no Einsteen's theory of relativity.

It is the lift available per KG weight of the fighter, who doesn't knows that!!!!!!

And I also know that the high wing loading stable fighters like F-15 are history and future belongs to low wing loading unstable or RSS fighters like Tejas

And the designers who did Tejas more know about " diff between min drag speed and max reserve of power speed of a jet ac", than you and me put together here,

We don't have to help them all with our advice perhaps!!!!!!!!!

Also F-16 XL is not forgotten if you say forget it. It's RSS fly by wire aerodynamic layout , with low wing loading compound delta wing form made with composites is pretty much the norm for any modern fighter.

You can see them on any modern fighter you can name.


I too can say like ,"pls, don't post anything regarding F-15 and that crap is long forgotton with advancements in tech and aerodynamics. It may have been what you claim in 1986, but now it is as obsolete as piston engine fighters"

but I know for guys who don't even design toy planes ,denigrating the creators of mighty beasts called fighter planes may look comical at best.

 

[p2prada]

Firstly LCA was never about IN. IN jumped in after seeing its potential and is also the first service to have put its own money into the project. had it not been for IN, Mk1 itself wud have been history and there wud have been no MK2. Pls remember IN never wrote the ASQR for this ac. IN was never a part of it and whatever we have asked for, we are paying for it upfront unlike IAF which is all about crying only.

Simply paying the money upfront isn't enough. LCA swallowed up IAF's procurement budget too.

More importantly, the point you made, IN never wrote the LCA's ASQR. But major changes are being made now. LCA Mk1 was a requirement from the 1980s, while IN's new requirements are more or less equivalent to Gripen NG. Now, the project itself is in a limbo. This is enough to generate more ammo for IN to increase MRCA numbers instead.

The faults on LCA are purely technical. Everybody is crying about it now, even IN.

I remember reading an article where the IAF Chief walked out of the room during a presentation in the early 90s where two middle ranking officers were making a case for upgrading the Mig-21 instead of focussing on the LCA alone. Their point was that LCA may be a better aircraft but it will take at least 20 years from then before it can be inducted. The then IAF Chief was completely for the LCA program, but the glaring facts hit him right across the face. The irony is the two officers were right all along.

Kaveri's failure in 2004 sealed the fate of the Mk1. It wasn't the IAF's fault that things didn't go according to plan.

 

[Decklander]

@ersakthivel, I had asked you to keep the debate graceful but you are again crossing your limits. You never answer question and resort to rhetoric. Like you never replied my question about radius of turn and ROT & wingloading. In that I also asked you why there has been no ac with cranked arrow wing design after F-16XL, you have not replied. I again asked you a question in post #1540 and you have not answered it. You seem to have read the most basic aerodynamics of KG school level and you claim yourself to be an expert in it.

 

[Decklander]

Simply paying the money upfront isn't enough. LCA swallowed up IAF's procurement budget too.

More importantly, the point you made, IN never wrote the LCA's ASQR. But major changes are being made now. LCA Mk1 was a requirement from the 1980s, while IN's new requirements are more or less equivalent to Gripen NG. Now, the project itself is in a limbo. This is enough to generate more ammo for IN to increase MRCA numbers instead.

The faults on LCA are purely technical. Everybody is crying about it now, even IN.

I remember reading an article where the IAF Chief walked out of the room during a presentation in the early 90s where two middle ranking officers were making a case for upgrading the Mig-21 instead of focussing on the LCA alone. Their point was that LCA may be a better aircraft but it will take at least 20 years from then before it can be inducted. The then IAF Chief was completely for the LCA program, but the glaring facts hit him right across the face. The irony is the two officers were right all along.

Kaveri's failure in 2004 sealed the fate of the Mk1. It wasn't the IAF's fault that things didn't go according to plan.

If you wud read my posts, I have never posted about N-LCA. I have only posted about Mk2. The above post was w.r.t IN scuttling the development. Infact, in a recent meeting with ACNS (Air) who happens to be my senior from Sea Harriers, I had a frank discussion regarding N-LCA with him and asked him to name one carrier borne fighter which had such high sweep angle? he was not able to name even one. I told him point blank that not only will IN lose ac and pilot but also might lose the carrier itself if we have a crash on deck as such an ac is not fit for deck ops IMO. DNAS, Cmde S Ahuja was also present and he happens to be my flying coursemate from 141PC. Cmde Ahuja is 66th NDA and is two yrs senior to me. He is from the same course as Sqn. Ldr Ajay Ahuja of Kargil fame.
I am not in favour of N-LCA for deck ops but IN plans to use them to set up their own complete training academy which will include basic trainers, Hawks for advanced naval training and thereafter branch out pilots into fighters, recce and helos. The fighter pilots will then move on to LCA for operational conversion training before being sent to deck landing sqns. The N-LCA will be for INAS-552.

 

[ersakthivel]

If you wud read my posts, I have never posted about N-LCA. I have only posted about Mk2. The above post was w.r.t IN scuttling the development. Infact, in a recent meeting with ACNS (Air) who happens to be my senior from Sea Harriers, I had a frank discussion regarding N-LCA with him and asked him to name one carrier borne fighter which had such high sweep angle? he was not able to name even one. I told him point blank that not only will IN lose ac and pilot but also might lose the carrier itself if we have a crash on deck as such an ac is not fit for deck ops IMO. DNAS, Cmde S Ahuja was also present and he happens to be my flying coursemate from 141PC. Cmde Ahuja is 66th NDA and is two yrs senior to me. He is from the same course as Sqn. Ldr Ajay Ahuja of Kargil fame.
I am not in favour of N-LCA for deck ops but IN plans to use them to set up their own complete training academy which will include basic trainers, Hawks for advanced naval training and thereafter branch out pilots into fighters, recce and helos. The fighter pilots will then move on to LCA for operational conversion training before being sent to deck landing sqns. The N-LCA will be for INAS-552.

What makes you think the whole design team at ADA could not know such a simple fact that aircrafts with high sweep angles can not operate on carrier ?

Do you think that Navy is stupid in giving 1000 crores to develop NLCA mk-2 with LEVCONS and powerful engines .

And till today do you think ADA would not have simulated a carrier landing for NLCA , and it does not show that it will crash on the deck taking down a carrier with it?

First you should understand huge technological projects like LCA or NLCA which are carried out with thousands of crores expenses are started only after through feasibility study .

If you have any doubt just watch the Mahindra XUV -500 project related program aired by Discovery yester day 8.00 PM. Even for a mundane SUV the whole thing is built and made to undergo simulated testing for stability and road trials and crash tests before the assembly line set up with thousand of crores expense goes on stream.

LCA was reviewed by none other than Abdul Kalam who had tons of experiences in project management and and an aeronautical engineer as well.

SO I have no doubt about the NLCA mk-2's success , with its more powerful engines and LEVCONS for carrier landings.

It is just the4 or so NLCA mk-1s, which due to lack of engine power for carrier ops being earmarked for training . The NLCA-mk-2 with LEVCONS and higher powered engines will be a full fledged carrier based fighter. No doubt about that.

Just yesterday I saw a program in Discovery where chinese built the worlds longest suspension bridge capable of supporting 340,000 tonnes of load with 17 000 steel cables.

Only after a comprehensive feasibility study in computer models they started building it. It is not the case like , "lets put in a few billion dollars and build a 340 000 ton load bearing world's longest suspension bridge with the help of 17000 steel cables with certain diameter, and see whether it takes the load or break".

And I also saw a ship called "Blue merlin" which was designed to sink 25 feet ,under the world's largest 48 000 ton fully assembled oil rig ,like a submarine , secure and lift the whole rig and ship it to 1000s of KMs across the seven seas.

Do you think the designers of the "Blue merlin" , started with just a few vague assumptions and no certainity approach , like "just build the damn ship sink it under the rig and see whether it lifts the 48000 ton oli rig or sink with it"

So I won't agree with your argument that NLCA was built with such a high sweep back even with out knowing it will crash on a carrier deck and sink the carrier itself. Because complex technological missions are not carried out that way, that too not in this terraflop computer power age.

Any way in five or six years time we will all know whether NLCA mk-1 and mk-2 are capable of landing and taking off on carrier desk. Let see.

 

[ersakthivel]

Many retired IAF types have called Tejas as a three legged cheetah before.

And many disparaging articles were published in VAYU mag regarding LCA , one of which was discussed in the following page,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-248.html

and another 2009 flight global article on tejas by a piece of shit called AUSTIN was also discussed a few pages before.

Now we are hearing the news that Tejas mk-1 has met the IAF requirements and in serial production .

 

[p2prada]

If you wud read my posts, I have never posted about N-LCA. I have only posted about Mk2. The above post was w.r.t IN scuttling the development. Infact, in a recent meeting with ACNS (Air) who happens to be my senior from Sea Harriers, I had a frank discussion regarding N-LCA with him and asked him to name one carrier borne fighter which had such high sweep angle? he was not able to name even one. I told him point blank that not only will IN lose ac and pilot but also might lose the carrier itself if we have a crash on deck as such an ac is not fit for deck ops IMO. DNAS, Cmde S Ahuja was also present and he happens to be my flying coursemate from 141PC. Cmde Ahuja is 66th NDA and is two yrs senior to me. He is from the same course as Sqn. Ldr Ajay Ahuja of Kargil fame.
I am not in favour of N-LCA for deck ops but IN plans to use them to set up their own complete training academy which will include basic trainers, Hawks for advanced naval training and thereafter branch out pilots into fighters, recce and helos. The fighter pilots will then move on to LCA for operational conversion training before being sent to deck landing sqns. The N-LCA will be for INAS-552.

Indeed, I am aware of your stand on the N-LCA. However you are being unfair on the IAF for what is clearly ADA's fault. IAF is 10 squadrons lesser than it should be. And we are lucky the Mig-21 Bison program worked out when it did.

The IAF has nothing to do with the all the issues plaguing LCA today. So, if LCA fails, it will be a big blow to both ADA and IAF and there is no elaborate plan to kill LCA, especially when we have so many Jaguar squadrons still in service and will undergo a major upgrade project of its own.

 

[Decklander]

Indeed, I am aware of your stand on the N-LCA. However you are being unfair on the IAF for what is clearly ADA's fault. IAF is 10 squadrons lesser than it should be. And we are lucky the Mig-21 Bison program worked out when it did.

The IAF has nothing to do with the all the issues plaguing LCA today. So, if LCA fails, it will be a big blow to both ADA and IAF and there is no elaborate plan to kill LCA, especially when we have so many Jaguar squadrons still in service and will undergo a major upgrade project of its own.

LCA is now a TINA (There is no alternative) and also NOTA(None of the above) option for IAF. They have to go for LCA in large numbers now. But I am happy that MK2 will be a far more capable ac than MK1 and the wait might turn out to be worth it. IMHO, IAF shud take over the supervision of assembly line of LCA like IN does for ship building.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

IN stand for Indigenous drive resulted in making a Indigenous Aircraft carrier and a Nuclear Submarine, I am sure NLCA MK1 & 2, And future NAMCA will be super vised by IN, Where IAF failed IN will succeeded as always they did it ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2334 Test Flights Successfully. (01-Oct-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-372,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-61,NP1-4,LSP8-28)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2344 Test Flights Successfully. (08-Oct-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-374,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-159,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-64,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

good going, approaching IOC-2. Wish NP also starts flying soon as it is last months of the year...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Soon be more ..

 

[rvjpheonix]

soon be more ..

is it an sp!!!!

 

[p2prada]

LCA is now a TINA (There is no alternative) and also NOTA(None of the above) option for IAF. They have to go for LCA in large numbers now. But I am happy that MK2 will be a far more capable ac than MK1 and the wait might turn out to be worth it. IMHO, IAF shud take over the supervision of assembly line of LCA like IN does for ship building.

Numbers really depends on HAL's abilities to provide for, what with MKI production still ongoing and Rafale to start.

The LCA numbers assumed for today is pretty high, 40 ordered and 83 possible orders. That's 6 squadrons.

With the IAF announcement of setting up their own manufacturing facility, it looks like HAL may be less burdened with work. Instead IAF's decision to design their own medium combat aircraft will end up killing ADA.

 

[rvjpheonix]

Numbers really depends on HAL's abilities to provide for, what with MKI production still ongoing and Rafale to start.

The LCA numbers assumed for today is pretty high, 40 ordered and 83 possible orders. That's 6 squadrons.

With the IAF announcement of setting up their own manufacturing facility, it looks like HAL may be less burdened with work. Instead IAF's decision to design their own medium combat aircraft will end up killing ADA.[/QUOTE
But won't we need interceptors after the migs are gone? Or are you of the opinion that this role can be handled well by other aircrafts? Won't it be a waste of money because the cost of operating a rafale or mki is definitely going to be more. Also using less costly aircraft for interception will free up other valuable assets. We get the required numbers for deterremve and a well oiled air force.I don't say the lca is some super duper fighter. But it will definitely do what it was designed to do from the outset "interception".ofcourse less cost means less capability when the price is half of that of other fighters.

 

[p2prada]

But won't we need interceptors after the migs are gone? Or are you of the opinion that this role can be handled well by other aircrafts?

It depends a lot on factors we have no idea about. For one, MKI level aircraft can practically stay in the air for endless amounts of time. While the scramble time for LCA type aircraft can be well within one minute, the MKI is already in the air with a huge number of BVR weapons for interception. With mid air refueling the on station time is as much as humanly possible.

The Russians and Americans use large and heavy aircraft for interception duties like the behemoth 40 tonne Mig-31 and the F-14(earlier) and now F-22 which can stay in the air for long periods of time. So we can push interception duties to heavy aircraft too. For eg: The Russians will replace the Mig-31 with PAKFA for interception roles and is touted to be superior to the Mig-31 in such a role. FGFA can perform the same role. MKI and FGFA will any day surpass LCA in supersonic capabilities, there is no question.

As for other capabilities,
Then there is the question of sortie generation rate. We don't know the sortie generation rate of the MKI or PAKFA. But we know that the Rafale can generate as much as 6 sorties in a day as demonstrated in the Libya war. So we don't know if LCA even matches that let alone surpass Rafale. FYI, F-35A/C is supposed to generate 2 sorties a day and F-35B is supposed to generate 3 a day.

Won't it be a waste of money because the cost of operating a rafale or mki is definitely going to be more.

The cost of keeping a MKI in the air for 4 hours with 9.5 tonnes of fuel is much cheaper than LCA's capability of staying in the air for only 40 minutes with 2.5 tonnes of fuel. The multiple number of times LCA has to take-off and land will put a lot of stress on the aircraft.

Also using less costly aircraft for interception will free up other valuable assets.

If you look at the USAF and VVS, they don't plan on even flying less costly aircraft.

We get the required numbers for deterremve and a well oiled air force.I don't say the lca is some super duper fighter. But it will definitely do what it was designed to do from the outset "interception".ofcourse less cost means less capability when the price is half of that of other fighters.

The program cost of the LCA matches that of the MKI actually. In 2011, it was revealed that LCA is projected to cost $11.3 Billion for 204 aircraft vs Saab's 13.5 Billion for 204 Gripens. MKI costs $12.3 Billion for 272 aircraft. Of course, LCA Mk2 has seen some major revisions like addition of AESA since then, which will push the cost beyond that of MKI. Also the cost of 11.3 Billion is considering the cost of LCA stays at 190 crores for all 204 aircraft, but that is impossible today. LCA Mk2 may surpass 250 crores and that's way more than MKI. Estimate for Mk2 was 210 crores in 2011.

 

[CuriousBen]

If you look at the USAF and VVS, they don't plan on even flying less costly aircraft.



The program cost of the LCA matches that of the MKI actually. In 2011, it was revealed that LCA is projected to cost $11.3 Billion for 204 aircraft vs Saab's 13.5 Billion for 204 Gripens. MKI costs $12.3 Billion for 272 aircraft. Of course, LCA Mk2 has seen some major revisions like addition of AESA since then, which will push the cost beyond that of MKI. Also the cost of 11.3 Billion is considering the cost of LCA stays at 190 crores for all 204 aircraft, but that is impossible today. LCA Mk2 may surpass 250 crores and that's way more than MKI. Estimate for Mk2 was 210 crores in 2011.

The united states has got into a habit post the vietnam war to indulge in excessive costs.
And why shouldn't they, they have a government strongly backed by the arms lobby.
Tyranny is the everywhere.
Only difference is that the USA will field in costly and quality weapons as "there is a cost of freedom and gain to capitalism"

In USA , a plan for low cost aircraft and an other related to the scramjet engine proposal ( think so its the hyperplane ) was dumped into dustbin.
Indians seeing some sense in them has taken it from there and am I am sure will implement it to "textbook perfection".

In USA , there was a person who designed a light weight and equally capable aircraft as that of F16, however , since it would be unprofitable to some, it was carefully ignored. You can draw parallel with the IAF lobbyst of foreign maal.

Each F-22 a/c will cost to 1 billion dollars and USA themselves cannot afford it.You might have read that the F-22 future development has not been encouraged.

If the cost of the LCA goes up, "then whats the problem ?". I dont see any problem. As long as its ours, its all right. Far greater amount is looted by criminals in the parliament from the government exchequer. And as a nation , we have grown to mature economically, that a few 1000 crore will not render us poor . Far greater amount is spent on bad quality hardware for the armed forces.


India needs the LCA , no doubt about it. After all its our own.

As a remote possibility, just consider this. If N-LCA proves itself every bit worthy in the coming 5 years, I am sure the USA will be interested in it. If not, we have the middle east countries who will be, as they are forced in some way to purchase USA hardware. Vietnam, equador and indonesia will follow suit as they dont like the chinese.

If I were the finance minister of India or the heavy industries minister, I would poke my nose into project and finance it with time pressure management.

Long live Tejas.

 

[CuriousBen]

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2334 Test Flights Successfully. (01-Oct-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-372,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-61,NP1-4,LSP8-28)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2344 Test Flights Successfully. (08-Oct-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-374,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-159,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-64,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

good going, approaching IOC-2. Wish NP also starts flying soon as it is last months of the year...

Dear Kunal,
Do we have any update about the progress being made by N-LCA ?I am eager to see it.

 

[CuriousBen]

LCA is now a TINA (There is no alternative) and also NOTA(None of the above) option for IAF. They have to go for LCA in large numbers now. But I am happy that MK2 will be a far more capable ac than MK1 and the wait might turn out to be worth it. IMHO, IAF shud take over the supervision of assembly line of LCA like IN does for ship building.

Decklander Sir,
Based on earlier replies to my queries , I have a few questions. Please answer them as your answers are pointed and engaging .

1. LCA is better than mig 21. So we can replace them. Good.
LCA mk1 not good enough to intercept F16. That's a concern.
I have drawn this based on your comments that you dont not rate LCA mk1 against F16.
If having many LCA mk1 wont be capable of defending out skies from these F-16 then , is there a valid reason to substitute all mig 21's.
Maybe I am being over concerned only about F16 as these have nuclear weapons delivery capability. I have ignored the other aircraft in the inventory of the adversary.
So kindly clarify this point to me. Also kindly explain to me , if the LCA mk1 can fend off any aggression from the mig and su variants of china and pak.
You may very well know the British were supported by the USA spitfire in ww2. These spitfires were earlier slow and were shot down by the invading german luft waffe. However as the spitfires were upgraded to be faster, the tables turned against the invading germans.
Point is , airmen, especially pilots matter, however the aircraft should be more capable.

2. Instead of the IAF supervising the quality of the aircraft, would you rather give this task to IN ?
To me, any naval aircraft is rugged, has multi role capabilities and has additional capabilities than those based purely on land.
Correct me on this.

3. The LCA tejas has exceeded the ASR of 1980's and 1990's.
Its believed that the ASR revised during the 2004 period, have also been met ( surpassed would be right ).
How true is that.
The media does not paint a correct picture. Its anti-tejas, referring to yelllow journal Times of India.
In keeping Raj Babbar in limelight for Raj Babbars apathy in the DGMO meeting ( Raj babbar and his loyal bunch of thugs were indifferent in a meeting about DGMO briefing them about Karen sector , and they left to claim free air tickets @ 04:30 pm) , these media people become selective in negative promotion of the criminal politicians, which in turn help to keep the Raj Babbars in further contention.
Criminals like to encourage themselves with a report of their successful crime activity, so they would never suppress the reporting.
Raj babbar is not the only one who is resident evil as there are a 1000 more who are chargesheeted.
Anyways , just wanted to prove how media uses negative publicity , suppresses the truth, and therefore I cannot trust them.

 

[CuriousBen]

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 2334 Test Flights Successfully. (01-Oct-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-372,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-157,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-61,NP1-4,LSP8-28)

to

LCA-Tejas has completed 2344 Test Flights Successfully. (08-Oct-2013).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-374,LSP1-74,LSP2-286,PV5-36,LSP3-159,LSP4-94,LSP5-220,LSP7-64,NP1-4,LSP8-31)

good going, approaching IOC-2. Wish NP also starts flying soon as it is last months of the year...

A though crossed my mind looking at the storm approaching in our eastern coast.
Is there any aircraft in the world that would dare to take-off and land in such deadly conditions ?
If we are talking about the all weather capabilities , what is the max wind speed beyond which the aircraft cant control itself ? 100 kmph 150 kmph ?

 

[rvjpheonix]

It depends a lot on factors we have no idea about. For one, MKI level aircraft can practically stay in the air for endless amounts of time. While the scramble time for LCA type aircraft can be well within one minute, the MKI is already in the air with a huge number of BVR weapons for interception. With mid air refueling the on station time is as much as humanly possible.

The Russians and Americans use large and heavy aircraft for interception duties like the behemoth 40 tonne Mig-31 and the F-14(earlier) and now F-22 which can stay in the air for long periods of time. So we can push interception duties to heavy aircraft too. For eg: The Russians will replace the Mig-31 with PAKFA for interception roles and is touted to be superior to the Mig-31 in such a role. FGFA can perform the same role. MKI and FGFA will any day surpass LCA in supersonic capabilities, there is no question.

As for other capabilities,
Then there is the question of sortie generation rate. We don't know the sortie generation rate of the MKI or PAKFA. But we know that the Rafale can generate as much as 6 sorties in a day as demonstrated in the Libya war. So we don't know if LCA even matches that let alone surpass Rafale. FYI, F-35A/C is supposed to generate 2 sorties a day and F-35B is supposed to generate 3 a day.



The cost of keeping a MKI in the air for 4 hours with 9.5 tonnes of fuel is much cheaper than LCA's capability of staying in the air for only 40 minutes with 2.5 tonnes of fuel. The multiple number of times LCA has to take-off and land will put a lot of stress on the aircraft.



If you look at the USAF and VVS, they don't plan on even flying less costly aircraft.



The program cost of the LCA matches that of the MKI actually. In 2011, it was revealed that LCA is projected to cost $11.3 Billion for 204 aircraft vs Saab's 13.5 Billion for 204 Gripens. MKI costs $12.3 Billion for 272 aircraft. Of course, LCA Mk2 has seen some major revisions like addition of AESA since then, which will push the cost beyond that of MKI. Also the cost of 11.3 Billion is considering the cost of LCA stays at 190 crores for all 204 aircraft, but that is impossible today. LCA Mk2 may surpass 250 crores and that's way more than MKI. Estimate for Mk2 was 210 crores in 2011.

We cannot compare ourselves to USAF. World of difference in budget. Also the VVS has a huge expanse of land to cover unlike us. So they need these long ranged very quick interceptors . That's the reason they have got serious speed. Not the eame scenario here. Putin has given a huge share of the GDP for militiary purposes which our common public won't justify and rightly so. And don't interceptors work in small groups? If so do you think we can always have 2 to 3 mki from each squadron constantly in the air for 4 hours. Also i have a doubt. Do these mkis on their regular sorties stay up for 4 hours? The lca turns out costlier only if you take in them operating for the same time as mkis which won't be the case in real life. We can't make the lca do 6 sorties for every sortie done by the mki