ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kunal Biswas]

The choice of LCA BVRAAM has everything to do with it... n'est pas?

Il n'a pas été abt u

 

[p2prada]

The choice of LCA BVRAAM has everything to do with it... n'est pas?

LCA is being made to fire all BVRs, R-77, Astra, Derby and if possible, Aim-120 too.

 

[Singh]

LCA is being made to fire all BVRs, R-77, Astra, Derby and if possible, Aim-120 too.

what about the datalinks/bus ? aren't they all different ? how will it work out ?

 

[Armand2REP]

LCA is being made to fire all BVRs, R-77, Astra, Derby and if possible, Aim-120 too.

That doesn't make any sense. It only needs one BVRAAM type. Having 3-4 different types that all do the same job is a logistics nightmare and I really doubt if IAF is going to be that redundant in wasting money.

 

[Armand2REP]

what about the datalinks/bus ? aren't they all different ? how will it work out ?

If it has a 1533 MIL databus, the software shouldn't be a problem except thousands of hours of reprogramming code dealing with launching to interface with the radar and HUD... even helmet sights. The hardware change requires new launchers for each station and rewiring them for it. Then testing actual launch, loadout configurations, weight and drag issues. Whole host of things to deal with.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

if it has a 1533 mil databus, the software shouldn't be a problem except thousands of hours of reprogramming code dealing with launching to interface with the radar and hud... Even helmet sights. The hardware change requires new launchers for each station and rewiring them for it. Then testing actual launch, loadout configurations, weight and drag issues. Whole host of things to deal with.

mil-std-1553b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1553

all these systems are integrated on three 1553b buses by a centralised 32-bit mission computer (mc) with high throughput which performs weapon computations and flight management, and reconfiguration/redundancy management. Reversionary mission functions are provided by a control and coding unit (ccu). Most of these subsystems have been developed indigenously.

The digital fbw system of the lca is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful digital flight control computer (dfcc) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (lru). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x10-7 per flight hour. The dfcc channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of ada language for the implementation of software. The dfcc receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The dfcc channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through mil-std-1553b avionics bus and rs 422 serial link. The digital fbw system of the lca is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful digital flight control computer (dfcc) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (lru). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x107 per flight hour. The dfcc channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of ada language for the implementation of software. The dfcc receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The dfcc channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through mil-std-1553b avionics bus and rs 422 serial link.

Multi-mode radar (mmr), the primary mission sensor of the lca in its air defence role, will be a key determinant of the operational effectiveness of the fighter. This is an x-band, pulse doppler radar with air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-sea modes. Its track-while-scan capability caters to radar functions under multiple target environment. The antenna is a light weight (< 5 kg), low profile slotted waveguide array with a multilayer feed network for broad band operation. The salient technical features are: Two plane monopulse signals, low side lobe levels and integrated iff, and guard and bite channels. The heart of mmr is the signal processor, which is built around vlsi-asics and i960 processors to meet the functional needs of mmr in different modes of its operation. Its role is to process the radar receiver output, detect and locate targets, create ground map, and provide contour map when selected. Post-detection processor resolves range and doppler ambiguities and forms plots for subsequent data processor. The special feature of signal processor is its real-time configurability to adapt to requirements depending on selected mode of operation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/lca.htm

............................................

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[p2prada]

That doesn't make any sense. It only needs one BVRAAM type. Having 3-4 different types that all do the same job is a logistics nightmare and I really doubt if IAF is going to be that redundant in wasting money.

All these options have been kept open. The LCA can integrate and fire any of the above missiles depending on availability during war.

IAF has all the upgrades required to rewire the aircraft to carry any type of missile whenever the need arises. We can be quite unique when we want to.

LCA may use the Python too. Though that is not clear yet. IAF had always asked for an open architecture. Mig-35 is also being made the same way. If we get it we can fit anything we want on it, including Meteor. However looking at the new Russian missiles being made available for FGFA, this may not be required.

But I am hoping we go for Astra and its more advanced versions in the long run.

 

[nitesh]

armand has valid question, armand two different options are looked at for BVR on LCA, R 77 and Python V. As Russia played hard ball to even let the R 73 integrate, So R 77 will be integrated or not, needs to be seen. But fair chance that we might see Python 5/ Derby as an option. As of now to tests have been done, mostly dummy missiles have been flown to see the flight, even in a symmetric configurations. The tests are expected before the FOC.

The first trial of R 73 was blind fire. But afterwards the tests were conducted and no information has been shared weather they were blind fires or some guidance was provided (guys correct me if i am wrong here)

 

[nitesh]

To follow ASR.

And what does ASR said?

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 others are children of lesser gods? Oh and this "pioneers of everything" has been gone too much far, please spare us.

LCA is supposed to fill ASR, not simply fly.

It is not "simply flying". It has demonstrated lot of capabilities

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

It is not a brief and closed chapter, it clearly shows how to stick with the platforms and make it mature not wait for eternity to induct. And it clearly debunks your so called theory that only "mature" platforms gets inducted.

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.

Others are children of lesser gods? Keep your blind worship to your self.

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

This is how every plane gets inducted, goes through IOC, and then FOC. No body has claimed that everything is done. This is the process the air craft follow. If the FIC is given with not fulfilling the ASR then talk.

ASR.

Give answer to what question has been asked, please

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.

How the bird was "accomplished" by investing on it right? And still there are periodic developments going on in that that is how it is done. How it will remain the same even after FOC? It will add the weapon mix that is needed. IAF pilots have to get used to these planes in large numbers so larger the number, it is better. Moreover larger number gives the idea about spare managment, this is our plane, we can not bring foreign expertise especially regarding this plane.

But LCA still does not fit ASR.

That is why it has been granted IOC, not FOC. This is how is done across the globe.

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?

The funding for TD 1 was given in 1993. So The CLAW team was building the software in US, and we know the story of source code denial which made the LCA delay it's flight, nothing new here.

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.

So now IAF for eternity will stick to 6 tankers only? Don't bring unnecessary arguments. In flight refueling is given to the plane which needs it. If some plane's mission is over it can be landed in the base, refueled and flown again.

And it still does not full fill ASR.

Has it been granted FOC?

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

Well, the result was not in your favor.

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.

Luckily, the war was for tiny period, if it extended then?

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

What? So in the world there was only two countries who were capable of producing extra wheat? And with those two friends we have been kept out from nuclear trade for 3 decades.

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

Because, there was no experience in building simulators, and no experimental plane to test it. The CLAW was tested on F 16 XL first to see it's handling capabilities.

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.

So you except, that there is connection between military and economic power? You can have only one, otherwise you are a dead duck

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

The question is IF, so till then spare the thoughts.

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.

HUGE? out of sanctioned strength of 39.5 squadrons, only 2 a mere 5%.

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.

Ah now engine, there is a word called START, you need to start it, it is a journey.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

i am also talking of LCA as it is now!!



validating is a precursor to induction via IOC (already happened) and validating more making it combat ready at FOC, a stage which should happen in 18 months to 2 yrs - a normal time for any fighter.



thrust on IAF?? IAF has a team at ASTE to oversee day to day LCA development. do you even know that?? have you heard of what the test pilots speak of LCA?? don't read quotes of the press in a way to suit your belief. LCA mark 1 though a little underpowered can replace many platforms in IAF post FOC.



my optimism stems from the fact that the LCA as of now has far outgrown from it's original plan. this is India's baseline to build on... you need to think of "balance" wrt now and the future. the ACM himself took back his words but you are not!!! while you stick to his one-off comment at IOC function you you don't stick to his clarification later. there it is - "balance".



are you part of ADA?? what do you know that others don't know about LCA AOA?? why don't share?? why not discuss it threadbare and conclude?? simply saying ADA hides and sundry does not help. since you talk about being a tax payer why don't file RTI or even write to MOD and clear your doubts??

Slowly Trying to get me do the dirty and difficult job eh ppgj? Thats the whole point. When there is nothing told about Tejas AOA how can we logically discuss it. Most of the posts here are assumptions. This will happen in future,this will fly by 2016, that will be ready by 2014. We just have the shell called Mark 1. And thats precisely why I say performance parameters should be revealed after LSP 6. This aircraft is supposed to define the AoA capabilities of Mark 1. Lets see how much info is shared. Lets all wait and see.

 

[p2prada]

And what does ASR said?
And others are children of lesser gods? Oh and this "pioneers of everything" has been gone too much far, please spare us.
It is not "simply flying". It has demonstrated lot of capabilities
It is not a brief and closed chapter, it clearly shows how to stick with the platforms and make it mature not wait for eternity to induct. And it clearly debunks your so called theory that only "mature" platforms gets inducted.
Others are children of lesser gods? Keep your blind worship to your self.
This is how every plane gets inducted, goes through IOC, and then FOC. No body has claimed that everything is done. This is the process the air craft follow. If the FIC is given with not fulfilling the ASR then talk.
Give answer to what question has been asked, please
How the bird was "accomplished" by investing on it right? And still there are periodic developments going on in that that is how it is done. How it will remain the same even after FOC? It will add the weapon mix that is needed. IAF pilots have to get used to these planes in large numbers so larger the number, it is better. Moreover larger number gives the idea about spare managment, this is our plane, we can not bring foreign expertise especially regarding this plane.
That is why it has been granted IOC, not FOC. This is how is done across the globe.
The funding for TD 1 was given in 1993. So The CLAW team was building the software in US, and we know the story of source code denial which made the LCA delay it's flight, nothing new here.
So now IAF for eternity will stick to 6 tankers only? Don't bring unnecessary arguments. In flight refueling is given to the plane which needs it. If some plane's mission is over it can be landed in the base, refueled and flown again.
Has it been granted FOC?
Well, the result was not in your favor.
Luckily, the war was for tiny period, if it extended then?
What? So in the world there was only two countries who were capable of producing extra wheat? And with those two friends we have been kept out from nuclear trade for 3 decades.
Because, there was no experience in building simulators, and no experimental plane to test it. The CLAW was tested on F 16 XL first to see it's handling capabilities.
So you except, that there is connection between military and economic power? You can have only one, otherwise you are a dead duck
The question is IF, so till then spare the thoughts.
HUGE? out of sanctioned strength of 39.5 squadrons, only 2 a mere 5%.
Ah now engine, there is a word called START, you need to start it, it is a journey.

You are grabbing at strings as usual.

I will repeat it again. Even after FOC LCA Mk1 will Not fill ASR.

 

[vijay jagannathan]

This whole LCA saga is a typical example of piss poor Project Management.
I wish this LCA didn't exist and it was all a bad dream. But unfortunately it isn't. If only we had taken up the offer when the Russians offered to sell the sovereignty(yeah not just license they offered the Mig-21 completely for 800k or so!) of the Mig-21 back in the late 80s- early 90s, we wouldn't be in this mess, with falling force levels.

And I'd like to add that Mig-21 is the second best interceptor in our Airforce, the first one being the Mig-29. Yeah, MKI is bit slow to be an good interceptor. Anyone with little knowledge of India will knows that this is a big country and interceptors are the most important of all fighters to keep our airspace safe. Yet, this LCA, which is being touted as Mig-21 replacement, can't even reach speeds of MKI. The ACM knows this pretty well and the other handicaps of LCA(poor TWR, costly, dubious G tolerance etc etc) hence his displeasure with the LCA. During the 80s, the poor bastards in the IAF thought LCA would be like a mirage with it's delta wing(Yeah, French named their fighter Mirage due to its speed), but they had no idea of the incompetence of the ADA/HAL. Hiding behind the poor excuse that it is a state owned entity doesn't cut it! China's, heck even Russia's R & D industry is state owned. And we all know Russia's industry is anything but incompetent.

Where were you hiding all these days? Thanks fulcrum. Lets lever out everyone mate

 

[nitesh]

You are grabbing at strings as usual.

Ah, so you don't have answered to the questions asked so running away.

I will repeat it again. Even after FOC LCA Mk1 will Not fill ASR.

So, isn't that a known fact? I don't think any body is trying to hide it. ADA director has confirmed that due to mid way changes in ASR some of the parameters will not be met without new engine. hence the MK 2 project has sanctioned. It does not means that a plane is completely useless that you are trying to portray.

 

[ppgj]

you seem to be not getting to terms at the sight of an "indian" LCA making it's way into IAF. if you have nothing to add apart from your non stop rants take your own advice you have been dolling out others - "relax, have a kitkat" or even better take a deeeeep breath.

besides 'you' were the one having a problem with 'taxpayers money' and 'you' being a taxpayer wanted answers. so what is 'dirty' or 'difficult job' of exercising your democratic right??

When there is nothing told about Tejas AOA how can we logically discuss it.

are you blind or what?? just go back and check the posts about IOC and FOC AOAs for LCA mark 1 which have been posted.

Most of the posts here are assumptions. This will happen in future,this will fly by 2016, that will be ready by 2014.

only if you knew how design & development work, you would not be asking this. your hate for LCA is clouding your judgement.

We just have the shell called Mark 1.

shell is hard to break.

And thats precisely why I say performance parameters should be revealed after LSP 6. This aircraft is supposed to define the AoA capabilities of Mark 1. Lets see how much info is shared. Lets all wait and see.

on the one hand you say "Lets all wait and see" and on the other you running all over whining that ADA does not know what is AOA/hiding it and what not??

 

[p2prada]

Ah, so you don't have answered to the questions asked so running away.

No. The questions are too dumb to be answered. You are just running around in circles. None of your posts have anything that allows you to think. It's like an interview and you are asking questions that make no sense. The interviewee just walked out. That's all.

So, isn't that a known fact? I don't think any body is trying to hide it. ADA director has confirmed that due to mid way changes in ASR some of the parameters will not be met without new engine. hence the MK 2 project has sanctioned. It does not means that a plane is completely useless that you are trying to portray.

That's wrong. The LCA Mk1 does not even fullfill the old ASR. The LCA cannot handle sustained turn rates at the required payloads at all. It has a lot to do with the underpowered engine.

You are talking about inducting a sub standard product and saying it is done the same way all over the world. Nobody does that. They induct yet to be finished potential state of the art products and wait till its ready.

Also you know nothing about international politics. You are just grabbing onto strings and believe the whole world is out to get us.

I have the highest ranking officials in the Air force and Navy backed by simple logic which says the LCA Mk1 is a prototype bird that needs a LOOOOOOOOT of work that is yet to be done.

The fact that IAF will help ADA test the fighter for 2 years and then immediately start testing the Mk2 for 2 more years is testament to the fact that IAF is in need of fighters ASAP. But, they want good fighters, not low quality ones. IAF wants ADA to succeed. But it's not happening. The very fact that IAF has accepted LCA Mk1 itself suggests they want ADA to succeed.

Take a look at Gripen. Swedish Airforce is not planning to buy the Gripen NG. But Gripen NG development is being carried out by SAAB independently without help from their air force. And the fact that IAF requirements for Gripen far surpass what they want even in LCA Mk2 shows that Saab is capable of turning their prototype into a real fighter even without help from their air force. If they lose the MRCA deal, no Swedish citizen will tear his hair for it.

If Saab can develop Gripen NG without user involvement then ADA can at least try to finish LCA Mk1 without user involvement. Even 1 squadron was enough.

 

[nitesh]

No. The questions are too dumb to be answered. You are just running around in circles. None of your posts have anything that allows you to think. It's like an interview and you are asking questions that make no sense. The interviewee just walked out. That's all.

Oh yeah, when some one counters your baseless claims and asks it to prove, it becomes dumb. So are you claiming here as an absolute and some body who can not be questioned?

That's wrong. The LCA Mk1 does not even fullfill the old ASR. The LCA cannot handle sustained turn rates at the required payloads at all. It has a lot to do with the underpowered engine.

So what? The corrective measures have been started, if that is not done then it is a different matter.

You are talking about inducting a sub standard product and saying it is done the same way all over the world. Nobody does that. They induct yet to be finished potential state of the art products and wait till its ready.

You have been given with the links, about different planes (EF and f 16 which according to you is gold standard as they are sons of greater gods), and you are still sticking to this baseless claim.

Also you know nothing about international politics. You are just grabbing onto strings and believe the whole world is out to get us.

oh yeah, another claim of absoluteness, get over it.

I have the highest ranking officials in the Air force and Navy backed by simple logic which says the LCA Mk1 is a prototype bird that needs a LOOOOOOOOT of work that is yet to be done.

That is why it is granted IOC? Or it has been granted FOC?

The fact that IAF will help ADA test the fighter for 2 years and then immediately start testing the Mk2 for 2 more years is testament to the fact that IAF is in need of fighters ASAP. But, they want good fighters, not low quality ones. IAF wants ADA to succeed. But it's not happening. The very fact that IAF has accepted LCA Mk1 itself suggests they want ADA to succeed.

Things are happening step by step, it's a good step by IAF to START the induction, so that other processes like training of technicians and familiarity with bird, checking out spare management can be kick started. Every plain goes though this process nothing new. And regarding the fighter induction, there has been no reduction in funding for either upgrade of existing fleet, or to buy new fighters. So claiming that LCA induction is stopping all that is baseless.

Take a look at Gripen. Swedish Airforce is not planning to buy the Gripen NG. But Gripen NG development is being carried out by SAAB independently without help from their air force. And the fact that IAF requirements for Gripen far surpass what they want even in LCA Mk2 shows that Saab is capable of turning their prototype into a real fighter even without help from their air force. If they lose the MRCA deal, no Swedish citizen will tear his hair for it.

You forget the simple thing that when Gripen got inducted in what ever form it was given and then other models where planned with the real world experience. And now they are using there funds to develop something, why should we worry about it. It's there money they can use it the way they want.

If Saab can develop Gripen NG without user involvement then ADA can at least try to finish LCA Mk1 without user involvement. Even 1 squadron was enough.

LCA was and is getting developed to meet IAF requirement, so user involvement is necessary. And there is no standard like one squadron has to be inducted for IOC.

 

[Singh]

Guys watch it. No ad hominem attack, ignorance is the best policy.

 

[p2prada]

So what? The corrective measures have been started, if that is not done then it is a different matter.

LOL. Like what?

You have been given with the links, about different planes (EF and f 16 which according to you is gold standard as they are sons of greater gods), and you are still sticking to this baseless claim.

*Roll eyes*

oh yeah, another claim of absoluteness, get over it.

We survived absolute economic sanctions and you are more worried about spares. Haha.

You don't realize that we could have still been achieving only 3% growth in 2010 had it not been for the vendor countries. China would have taken AP and Aksai Chin long time ago.

That is why it is granted IOC? Or it has been granted FOC?

ASR? So, ASR can go to hell. Nobody cares if it is useful or not as long as it looks pretty. Wow.

Things are happening step by step, it's a good step by IAF to START the induction, so that other processes like training of technicians and familiarity with bird, checking out spare management can be kick started. Every plain goes though this process nothing new. And regarding the fighter induction, there has been no reduction in funding for either upgrade of existing fleet, or to buy new fighters. So claiming that LCA induction is stopping all that is baseless.

"Every planes goes through this process." NO. Every plane that is going to achieve ASR will go through this process. LCA Mk1 will not achieve ASR goals. That has already been made clear.

You forget the simple thing that when Gripen got inducted in what ever form it was given and then other models where planned with the real world experience. And now they are using there funds to develop something, why should we worry about it. It's there money they can use it the way they want.

Gripen surpassed ASR. It is a success.

LCA was and is getting developed to meet IAF requirement, so user involvement is necessary. And there is no standard like one squadron has to be inducted for IOC.

LCA Mk2 is being developed to meet requirements. LCA Mk1 cannot meet requirements and simple logic dictates that.

Forget the new even the old ASR is not being met. LCA Mk1, after FOC, will still not generate the sustained turn rate required nor is it able to carry the required 4tons external payload at the required range. The undercarriage is still overweight by 500Kg.

Even 1 squadron is too much.

 

[gogbot]

LOL. Like what?



*Roll eyes*



We survived absolute economic sanctions and you are more worried about spares. Haha.

You don't realize that we could have still been achieving only 3% growth in 2010 had it not been for the vendor countries. China would have taken AP and Aksai Chin long time ago.



ASR? So, ASR can go to hell. Nobody cares if it is useful or not as long as it looks pretty. Wow.



"Every planes goes through this process." NO. Every plane that is going to achieve ASR will go through this process. LCA Mk1 will not achieve ASR goals. That has already been made clear.



Gripen surpassed ASR. It is a success.



LCA Mk2 is being developed to meet requirements. LCA Mk1 cannot meet requirements and simple logic dictates that.

Forget the new even the old ASR is not being met. LCA Mk1, after FOC, will still not generate the sustained turn rate required nor is it able to carry the required 4tons external payload at the required range. The undercarriage is still overweight by 500Kg.

Even 1 squadron is too much.

Honestly , dude your such an absolutist.
Tejas either meets full ASR or it's flying junk.
Can't you just compromise and take the middle ground.

Tejas may not be the carbon copy of the gripen you want.
And Gripen may in fact achieve higher AoA's in testing and when FBW is turned off.
It may have a higher thrust to weight ratio.
But are there not parameters when it match's or even excels against ?

Come one the Tejas must have in your view its own redeeming qualities.
Surely you have to agree it has met some if not most of the ASR , you never seem to talk about that.

Nothing can be done about our engine woes and weight loss has been an ongoing issue.
But you can't possibly accept difficulties in a few area's to scraping the plane as whole.
We don't have the Kaveri as planned , so we have to use an engine which was heavier than planned and with a weaker trust.
Had we built the aircraft optimized for the GE-404 , this might not have been the case.

This is not just about making things look pretty , scraping the ASR. This is about about acting in regards to our long term interests ,
Indeginsation comes with compromise , show me an example where this is not the case.

You say 2 squadrons are too much , i think that is the perfect number , as that keeps the production line busy till 2014 , when the first MMRCA birds arrive and the MK-2 testing begins.

If you think that building an indigenous platform to comprise just 5% of IAF's fleet still dominated by Soviet era and cold war aircraft, is a loss then then how exactly does our defense sector build , develop or grow.
IAF it self has accepted that LCA is superior to mig-21 , at the very least you have to accept that because of the aircraft overall fleet strength is increased.
Also you i would much rather have 40-80 pilots flying the LCA MK1 then the Mig-21.

Real change comes from action alone, unless we actually induct and fielded the assets at our disposal , the developers or the users will never get the real world experience required to improve or make the kind of products we want. Even IAF has to get its ASR right for the future.
AS you said your self this aircraft needs to be put through its paces in squadron service , it needs to be put though exercises.

Essentially by the time we get the MkII IAF will already know what to do with the aircraft , AS well as ensure that the developers overcome any real world issue that arise.

If we were just buying the system , ASR should be end all.
But when actually developing or making the weapons system we need to take other considerations to planning as well. We are not just buying but also building capability. This was something echoed by the navy.

Investment in the LCA has always been about the bigger pay of in the future.
Building a successful weapons system requires infrastructure , resources , time , expertise and political will

We have built some infrastructure , which we should continue to build and we have invested both time and money.
Squadron induction is to build the expertise and political will.

At the end of it all anyone would prefer the Tejas over the Mig-21(not bison) , as long as we have Mig-21 that can be replaced i see a need for Tejas.
Especially when at present we don't even meet sanctioned squadron strength.

There is a definitive need for at least 1 squadron. And advantages with fielding 2.