ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Chinmoy]

Which is factually wrong, because it's the inability of our industry, to develop and produce arms and techs, that suit the operational requirements, that makes us the biggest importer!

Even after decades, our industry struggles to develop a 4th gen low end fighter, while our threat perception increased to counter 5th gen fighters. We hope that our industry will be able to deliver 5th gen fighters in 2030, while the threat perception will have changed then again. So this imbalance makes imports necessary, because the security of the nation has to come first!




IAF was generous to accept the MK1A stop gap in the first place, which itself is a favour for HAL and the whole Tejas programme, because MK1A doesn't solve the performance problems, nor was it what ADA promised them to be available by now (LCA MK2). So why should IAF buy even more of them and waste more of their limited budget, to give HAL another favour? You can't expect the forces to make concessions over and over again, just to get an indigenous product into production.



True, but here again, part of the high costs, are based on the fact, that we have to import so much once again because the inability of the industry. Be it the nose, IFR probe, BVR missiles, radar, or EW, all supposed to be indigenous by now, but after years of development and high amounts of money invested, we had no choice than to import alternatives.



Which hampers with natonal security, because you need multiple LCAs, to do what a single MMRCA does and still would have lower technical capabilities.
You can't cut operational requirements short like that. We need MKIs and MMRCAs, to counter the enemies. We need Tejas to support MKIs and MMRCAs.



True, but the way out is to improve the industry and the development programmes, not to force IAF, IA or IN to use substandard equipment, because that is all the industry can come up with.

You are talking of PRESENT while I am stating about PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE. In past we had Marut. By whatever means we had made it, but we did. It us underpowered and didn't performed as expected. Agreed. But why to ditch it completely for Mirage? We could have operated a squad or two of Marut and would have gone with gradual upgradation in it in phase wise manner. Wouldn't it have helped our industry? But what we did is simple license production for numbers and at end of day today after all this production we are still short of numbers. Is it not nearsightedness on part of IAF?

In case of Tejas, did IAF came overboard from begining? NO. It was a decision by politicians and industry to manufacture one as a replacement of Mig 21. Its only after that the first flight took place, IAF came into scene actively for IOC and FOC. Now how could you expect Tejas to be a long legged fighter without active participation of user from day one? Is it not nearsightedness on part of IAF?

Manufacturing and producing a jet is time, resource and capital consuming. So unless and untill you have active participation and support of end user you can't sustain the project. ADA and HAL on their part had committed mistakes regarding defining timeline. Agreed. But IAF should also understand that they are not making a glider either. On manufacturer part if they do cite a exorbitant timeline they would be at a risk of losing the job or in case of HAL and ADA funding. So even if they want they can't quote a realistic timeline. So being a user IAF should have a buffer time zone planned for these. And this is not just in case of ADA/HAL. Every organization country wide or even worldwide does face this situation on a maiden project. Even in case of Rafale we are getting the first jet after 3 years of contract signing. Now IAF is ok with 6 jets a year in this case, but want HAL to deliver 16 jets per year. Now Dassault has an established production line whereas HAL is still establishing. Is it not nearsightedness on part of IAF?

Now IAF has basically not agreed upon Mk1A whole heartedly in first place. It was thrust down their throat. So they just reached a compromise with HAL. Now on their part, as I mentioned earlier, why haven't they been with ADA from design phase? IAF just went on adding requirement for IOC and then on FOC version with each passing day. On other side lets have a look at IN. They did established a design bureau and started working on their warship and armaments. Now India is capable enough to build a Carrier and a Nuclear boomer indigenously. The first would obviously take time and would not be the top of the line for sure. But it doesn't mean that you should float global RFI for every thing. Even today IAF doesn't have a design bureau and instead working on GSQR of second MMRCA. Is it not nearsightedness on part of IAF?

Now talking about the capability of a MMRCA and Tejas, you might have noticed that I suggested decreasing the number of MMRCA by 10 and increasing the number of Tejas by 17, i.e., nearly two LCA for one MMRCA. Now it would provide a breathing space for both IAF and manufacturer. With increase in numbers, IAF could demand a drop in price on the RFP. Now when you talk about Radome and IFR again it would depend on the numbers you demand. With just 40 on order, the cheapest way out is to buy them off the shelf. Moreover its not that ADA had not provided a Radome. They did, but IAF wanted a quartz Radome instead for which we didn't have a industry. The IFR probe too was added later on and was never on the preliminary design. Why? Because IAF was never on board with designer in preliminary stage to discuss these things.

Regarding BVR, Tejas already showed it and RADAR too is undergoing ground testing. You have to consider the fact that we can't compare our industry with that of west as we are already 50 years behind them in studies done on these. But we are rapidly catching up and coming up with products. But if we do want to sustain it, we would have to order them in numbers. A mere 40 or 50 is not going to make the projects sustainable.

 

[dumdumdum]

SP-12 flew today. So there is still outside chance that we will see SP-16 flying by end of this fiscal

 

[Sancho]

You are talking of PRESENT while I am stating about PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE.

No, I am talking about the reality of Indias defence industrial capability, in this case in the aviation field...
...and the threat perception to the country, which both are not in line to each other and that's why we need imports!
Justifying a Marut for industrial reasons therefore is wrong, only if it had added to the defence capability of the nation, it would had been worth it.
But the real mistake we did after that programm, was not to follow the same development path, by letting HAL + a foreign design and development partner lead the LCA programme. Instead we let ADA take leadership, with no knowledge or experience in design, development or project management on such a scale, which is the prime reason why we messed it up!

So being a user IAF should have a buffer time zone planned for these.

That doesn't make any sense. It's the responsibility of the developer / manufacturer, to develop things in time. It's not the responsibility of the customer, to plan with utter incompetence of the developer and manufacturing issues.

If you buy a new car and get promised delivery in Jan, you don't plan with delays, not working features, or plan the procurement with "buffer zone" either, so why should IAF do that?

Even in case of Rafale we are getting the first jet after 3 years of contract signing. Now IAF is ok with 6 jets a year in this case, but want HAL to deliver 16 jets per year.

You got that mixed up!

An LCA just as a Rafale, needs 3 years to be produced, but because of the orders of Egypt, Qatar and India, Dassault increased the production rate from 11, to 22 per year, to fill customers demands on time lines.
Similarly, IAF requested to increase the production rate from 8 for the current order, to 16, for the larger MK1A order.
But HAL is even delayed in the current low rate production and that opens them up to deserved criticism. The same would be the case, if Dassault fails to deliver the promised numbers of Rafale.

Now IAF has basically not agreed upon Mk1A whole heartedly in first place. It was thrust down their throat.

Wrong, without approval of IAF for the MK1A compromise, HAL never had been able to start the tenders for AESA and EW, so it was IAF that kept Tejas alive, contrary to IN, that rejected NLCA right away (for good reasons though).
So IAF actually deserves credit, to remain committed, to an underperforming, medium tech fighter. All they reject, are high costs and if that rejection is valid or not, is up to the MoD now to decide.

IAF just went on adding requirement for IOC and then on FOC version with each passing day.

Wrong again, IOC was only achieved after several concessions by IAF, because LCA didn't meet the promised capabilities. Even FOC changes, are largely due to capability shortfalls (low radar performance due to radome issue, IFR because overweight limited fuel capacity, up to something basic as gun), or logical modernisatons of capabilities, due to the long delay (replacement of older missiles, with newer once, after a decade of delay in FOC).

On other side lets have a look at IN.

Please not this myth again. Russian Frigates, carriers, SSNs, French SSKs, Italian tankers, or the fact that 90% of naval aviation will be imported and still people believe that IN somehow is a major driver in indigenous developments???

Now talking about the capability of a MMRCA and Tejas, you might have noticed that I suggested decreasing the number of MMRCA by 10 and increasing the number of Tejas by 17, i.e., nearly two LCA for one MMRCA.

Which is not enough to cover the operational needs and more importantly adds costs!
If you need 2 or 3 fighters, to do the job of 1 MMRCA, it also means increased procurement costs, increased demands on pilots, ground crews, or spare and maintenance requirements. IAF would be less capable to defend the country, while paying more money!

Moreover its not that ADA had not provided a Radome. They did, but IAF wanted a quartz Radome instead for which we didn't have a industry. The IFR probe too was added later on and was never on the preliminary design. Why? Because IAF was never on board with designer in preliminary stage to discuss these things.

Completely false! Read above

But we are rapidly catching up and coming up with products

Look at the reality of the LCA programme and all it's sub components, that was meant to be available by now and you see that the opposite is the case. We are not catching up, but further fall behind!

- 4th gen fighter, when the world is on 5th gen standard
- 5th gen AMCA, when the world is moving to 6th gen fighters
- pulse doppler radar (that also needed imported parts), when the world moved to AESA (even Darin 3 Jag has the more advanced radar, than LCA IOC/FOC).
- basic BVR and guided strike weapons, when the world is moving to ramjet propelled AAMs, or hypersonic cruise missiles

Or to make it more obvious, Kargil war was in 1999 and the key capabilities of IAF back then were Russian BVR missiles and US/Israeli LGBs. So nearly 20 years have passed and we still don't have an indigenous BVR missile, or LGB operational. That's the reality of our industrial capability today and why the nation is dependent on imports!

 

[Indx TechStyle]

No, I am talking about the reality of Indias defence industrial capability, in this case in the aviation field...
...and the threat perception to the country, which both are not in line to each other and that's why we need imports!

India has no immediate war threat. War with China is highly unlikely situations of international politics and for Pakistan, India maintains superiority.
And second, for developing aviation industry, equipment is needed to be inducted, used, assessed and then problems are to be rectified which imparts technological edge. If you have never started, you don't have right to complain over not having edge.
Getting the costliest and best in the world isn't correct argument because IAF is already one of biggest air forces in world.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Bro, are you joking!!??

When the HTFE project came into picture, the max they planned on going is around 40-45(structural strength)kn.

HTFE has started as a project to understand the 3-D printed metal parts and also to replace low thrust engines(Hawk and variants).

Converting a single engine two twin engine is no easy task. What about increase of weight!? Extra space for fuel!!

Sirji, aap ko Kya ho gaya!!!

Baby's requirement is twin engine plane.

Weight will not increase. HTFE weighs 350kg. New 37kn dry 49 wet engine will not weight more than 500 kg. This is equal to current weight of Tejas with more thrust.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Baby's requirement is twin engine plane.

Weight will not increase. HTFE weighs 350kg. New 37kn dry 49 wet engine will not weight more than 500 kg. This is equal to current weight of Tejas with more thrust.

After burner section weighs about 60% of the core section. Also, the size and space for 2 engine will be much higher

 

[Chinmoy]

No, I am talking about the reality of Indias defence industrial capability, in this case in the aviation field...
...and the threat perception to the country, which both are not in line to each other and that's why we need imports!
Justifying a Marut for industrial reasons therefore is wrong, only if it had added to the defence capability of the nation, it would had been worth it.
But the real mistake we did after that programm, was not to follow the same development path, by letting HAL + a foreign design and development partner lead the LCA programme. Instead we let ADA take leadership, with no knowledge or experience in design, development or project management on such a scale, which is the prime reason why we messed it up!



That doesn't make any sense. It's the responsibility of the developer / manufacturer, to develop things in time. It's not the responsibility of the customer, to plan with utter incompetence of the developer and manufacturing issues.

If you buy a new car and get promised delivery in Jan, you don't plan with delays, not working features, or plan the procurement with "buffer zone" either, so why should IAF do that?



You got that mixed up!

An LCA just as a Rafale, needs 3 years to be produced, but because of the orders of Egypt, Qatar and India, Dassault increased the production rate from 11, to 22 per year, to fill customers demands on time lines.
Similarly, IAF requested to increase the production rate from 8 for the current order, to 16, for the larger MK1A order.
But HAL is even delayed in the current low rate production and that opens them up to deserved criticism. The same would be the case, if Dassault fails to deliver the promised numbers of Rafale.




Wrong, without approval of IAF for the MK1A compromise, HAL never had been able to start the tenders for AESA and EW, so it was IAF that kept Tejas alive, contrary to IN, that rejected NLCA right away (for good reasons though).
So IAF actually deserves credit, to remain committed, to an underperforming, medium tech fighter. All they reject, are high costs and if that rejection is valid or not, is up to the MoD now to decide.



Wrong again, IOC was only achieved after several concessions by IAF, because LCA didn't meet the promised capabilities. Even FOC changes, are largely due to capability shortfalls (low radar performance due to radome issue, IFR because overweight limited fuel capacity, up to something basic as gun), or logical modernisatons of capabilities, due to the long delay (replacement of older missiles, with newer once, after a decade of delay in FOC).



Please not this myth again. Russian Frigates, carriers, SSNs, French SSKs, Italian tankers, or the fact that 90% of naval aviation will be imported and still people believe that IN somehow is a major driver in indigenous developments???




Which is not enough to cover the operational needs and more importantly adds costs!
If you need 2 or 3 fighters, to do the job of 1 MMRCA, it also means increased procurement costs, increased demands on pilots, ground crews, or spare and maintenance requirements. IAF would be less capable to defend the country, while paying more money!



Completely false! Read above



Look at the reality of the LCA programme and all it's sub components, that was meant to be available by now and you see that the opposite is the case. We are not catching up, but further fall behind!

- 4th gen fighter, when the world is on 5th gen standard
- 5th gen AMCA, when the world is moving to 6th gen fighters
- pulse doppler radar (that also needed imported parts), when the world moved to AESA (even Darin 3 Jag has the more advanced radar, than LCA IOC/FOC).
- basic BVR and guided strike weapons, when the world is moving to ramjet propelled AAMs, or hypersonic cruise missiles

Or to make it more obvious, Kargil war was in 1999 and the key capabilities of IAF back then were Russian BVR missiles and US/Israeli LGBs. So nearly 20 years have passed and we still don't have an indigenous BVR missile, or LGB operational. That's the reality of our industrial capability today and why the nation is dependent on imports!

First of all try to look things from practical point of view. No where I am pitching Tejas against likes of F's or Rafales in terms of capability. But I am talking about developing indigenous industry to that position of churning out at par products. US too fought its war with European weapons to start with before its war generals took the initiative to demand and come on board with developers for weapon of their choice. Its not like they sat over for something to come their way and if it doesn't come go to Europeans. You can't expect results from OEM unless and untill you, being a user doesn't collaborate with them. No matter how much money or effort you pay, the user would always have the last say on things and so its better to take them on board for better for them to be on board in case of India.

Now setting up ADA is the right thing to be done. HAL is a manufacturing agency, not a designer agency. If you do know the composition of ADA, it does comprises of people who have worked with or for HAL initially. So having a designing authority is the right thing to do unlike you suggest.

Now in case of IN you need to grow up and open your eyes. Developing a capable system with foreign help or part is one thing but borrowing a whole platform is another thing. IN might be developing its Carrier based on a Russian design, but it does have build up te capability to build it locally. India might be buying up two frigates from Russia, but it is building another two in house. India might be using Russian missiles and Italian gun on its destroyer, but it has developed the destroyer in house. With time and period comes experience and for that experience you need to have support of user along with products to work on.

On Mk1A front, you might know that IAF was never interested in it at first place. They were asking for Mk2 with all the improved components from the word go. But Mk1A was a compromise and on top of that IAF is still not ordering it. So a big NO on IAF part for supporting Tejas as you mentioned. IAF is okay with MKI which is operating with BARS PESA and is also okay with the proposed ZHUK upgradation which is running probably 5 or 6 years late. But it is not adapting a stage wise upgrade for Tejas which is a logical thing around world. The gradual upgrade would not only keep the production line working, but would also help IAF to keep its price in check along with the local industry which would always keep on fray for a better offer. But instead of it IAF just sat on their demands on the pretext that they are short on squadrons. Even the proposed 110 MMRCA would not be capable enogh to fill up the required squadron level for IAF. What would be the next step then?

Good thing that you mentioned Kargil. The last war India fought before it was in 1971. In the intervening 28 years IAF inducted a Multi role fighter Mirage, but then again in Kargil had to take a massive overhaul and had to order LGB kits and pods from Israel for bombing mission. So who was responsible for this plight? DRDO/ HAL or IAF? For 28 years IAF had been unable to come up with a doctrine of mountain warfare. On top of it they have not even given any order for that purpose to neither DRDO nor any foreign vendor. So you see how far IAF could see? Unlike a private firm of west DRDO is a public entity. As you said it can't divulge into costly affair of weapon manufacturing or R&D unless there is ample user interest.

Moreover what is the doctrine of IAF regarding Tejas? Did they built any? Is it going to be a air dominance or strike fighter for which they are asking for AESA and BVR as a prerequisite for FOC? Going by their current deployment status, Tejas is going to act along with MKIs and other MMRCAs. So its current PESA or even MMR is good enough in that role.

My only point is, why not order Tejas in some decent numbers? This simple step on part of IAF would encourage even the private companies to invest in the project. As far as war is concerned, as @Indx TechStyle already mentioned, mere weapons is not going to save the day for you. It depends on the diplomacy too on averting it. Moreover a strong defence industry in house itself works as a stronger deterrent then foreign weapons.

 

[Chinmoy]

BTW on NLCA front..

“The tech demonstrator of LCA Navy doesn’t meet our requirement of being a deck-based fighter aircraft. We are now working with the DRDO and the ADA to find a solution. Developing a fighter aircraft is a time-consuming project. That’s why we are trying to acquire 57 fighter aircraft from abroad,” he said during an exclusive chat with The New Indian Express.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...navys-requirements-admiral-lanba-1898372.html

Look at the underlined part. IN is secondary user of LCA. But even then they are supporting the project. Wish IAF too could have taken up a same approach.

 

[Kharavela]

First of all try to look things from practical point of view. No where I am pitching Tejas against likes of F's or Rafales in terms of capability. But I am talking about developing indigenous industry to that position of churning out at par products. US too fought its war with European weapons to start with before its war generals took the initiative to demand and come on board with developers for weapon of their choice. Its not like they sat over for something to come their way and if it doesn't come go to Europeans. You can't expect results from OEM unless and untill you, being a user doesn't collaborate with them. No matter how much money or effort you pay, the user would always have the last say on things and so its better to take them on board for better for them to be on board in case of India.

Now setting up ADA is the right thing to be done. HAL is a manufacturing agency, not a designer agency. If you do know the composition of ADA, it does comprises of people who have worked with or for HAL initially. So having a designing authority is the right thing to do unlike you suggest.

Now in case of IN you need to grow up and open your eyes. Developing a capable system with foreign help or part is one thing but borrowing a whole platform is another thing. IN might be developing its Carrier based on a Russian design, but it does have build up te capability to build it locally. India might be buying up two frigates from Russia, but it is building another two in house. India might be using Russian missiles and Italian gun on its destroyer, but it has developed the destroyer in house. With time and period comes experience and for that experience you need to have support of user along with products to work on.

On Mk1A front, you might know that IAF was never interested in it at first place. They were asking for Mk2 with all the improved components from the word go. But Mk1A was a compromise and on top of that IAF is still not ordering it. So a big NO on IAF part for supporting Tejas as you mentioned. IAF is okay with MKI which is operating with BARS PESA and is also okay with the proposed ZHUK upgradation which is running probably 5 or 6 years late. But it is not adapting a stage wise upgrade for Tejas which is a logical thing around world. The gradual upgrade would not only keep the production line working, but would also help IAF to keep its price in check along with the local industry which would always keep on fray for a better offer. But instead of it IAF just sat on their demands on the pretext that they are short on squadrons. Even the proposed 110 MMRCA would not be capable enogh to fill up the required squadron level for IAF. What would be the next step then?

Good thing that you mentioned Kargil. The last war India fought before it was in 1971. In the intervening 28 years IAF inducted a Multi role fighter Mirage, but then again in Kargil had to take a massive overhaul and had to order LGB kits and pods from Israel for bombing mission. So who was responsible for this plight? DRDO/ HAL or IAF? For 28 years IAF had been unable to come up with a doctrine of mountain warfare. On top of it they have not even given any order for that purpose to neither DRDO nor any foreign vendor. So you see how far IAF could see? Unlike a private firm of west DRDO is a public entity. As you said it can't divulge into costly affair of weapon manufacturing or R&D unless there is ample user interest.

Moreover what is the doctrine of IAF regarding Tejas? Did they built any? Is it going to be a air dominance or strike fighter for which they are asking for AESA and BVR as a prerequisite for FOC? Going by their current deployment status, Tejas is going to act along with MKIs and other MMRCAs. So its current PESA or even MMR is good enough in that role.

My only point is, why not order Tejas in some decent numbers? This simple step on part of IAF would encourage even the private companies to invest in the project. As far as war is concerned, as @Indx TechStyle already mentioned, mere weapons is not going to save the day for you. It depends on the diplomacy too on averting it. Moreover a strong defence industry in house itself works as a stronger deterrent then foreign weapons.

I fail to understand why you & some other guys are replying to @Sancho. No matter how logical / practical / factual your post is, he is not going to accept.

The posts are being repetitive wrt information on Tejas LCA. The threads are going longer & longer without additional information.

In comparison, BRF threads have more facts/ info due to absence of such tu-tu=>main-main.

Sent from my ASUS_X00TD using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

India has no immediate war threat.

Really? Doklam border stand off, surgical strike, cross border mortar shellings, air space violations, PLAN expanding presence in the IOR... why do you think IAF prepares for a 2-2.5 front war today?

And second, for developing aviation industry, equipment is needed to be inducted, used, assessed and then problems are to be rectified which imparts technological edge.

If you have never started, you don't have right to complain over not having edge.

True for the first part, false for the 2nd, because you can only use something, that is working and in production. IAF ordered LCA back in 2006 and still is waiting for that order to be delivered. So the complain is about...
...an underperforming product, that went into production below the promised performance and capabilites (responsibility of ADA)
...the delayed certification process (responsibility of ADA)
...as well as the production delays (responsibility of HAL)

Nobody complains about not having an edge, simply because everyone knows, that Indian industry is not able to deliver high tech arms or techs. The issue is, that we can't even provide basic things on our own sor far. A light class fighter, a BVR missile, an LGB, that's nothing that gains an edge today anymore, but is standard capability.

Getting the costliest and best in the world isn't correct argument because IAF is already one of biggest air forces in world.

The argument is not getting the costliest or best, but comparable techs and capabilities, that our enemies have. When the enemy is inducting 4.5th and 5th gen medium and heavy class fighters, you can't counter them with a basic 4th gen light class fighter. That's why we need MKI and MMRCA, while adding a working LCA on the lower end.

 

[akk]

As of today, I see nothing lacking on part of HAL. they have "go ahead" to produce only 16 lca, 12 of which have been delivered. Remaining 4 in in different stages of assembly. The rest 24 cannot apparently be started till foc is achieved, it will take about 8-9months from foc to assemble first aircraft. That's enough time for the remaining 4. The blame, lies between iaf and ADA.

 

[Sancho]

First of all try to look things from practical point of view.

I am, from the practical point of view of IAF, while you prefer the view of our industry.
My view is simple, any indigenous arm or tech, that suits the operational requirements to defend the country is greatly welcomed, but don't pressure the forces to use substandard equipment just for the sake of national pride!

No where I am pitching Tejas against likes of F's or Rafales in terms of capability. But I am talking about developing indigenous industry to that position of churning out at par products.

You pitched reduction of MMRCAs, to add more LCAs and that only makes our defence weaker, without improving the industry 1 bit.
The only way to improve the industry, is to hold PSUs accountable and get private industry more committed to R&D to be real alternatives or partners for PSUs (Kestrel, ATAGS).

Now setting up ADA is the right thing to be done. HAL is a manufacturing agency, not a designer agency.

So not using available design knowledge and instead start from scratch, without external support was the right way? Not to mention that it's not "just" the design, ADA is responsible for the whole programme, without having a clue, how to do it properly. That's why EADS/Airbus was hired later, to consult on flight testing of LCA, or fixing design issues of NLCA. Both times after ADA already messed things up, contrary to HALs approach in Marut or Dhruv, where foreign consultancy was gained from the start and throughout the early stages of the development. That's the difference between I know it all and I realise my limitations and ask for help.
ADA is the single biggest problem of the LCA programme, besides all the other failures of DRDO in sub component developments (engine, radar, EW, weapons...).

India might be buying up two frigates from Russia, but it is building another two in house.

By the same logic, IAF buys foreign MMRCAs and indigenous LCAs, but still you think that IN is supporting indigenous development more, because they have a naval design agency, but as you can see, that doesn't change the reality of Indian industry not being able to provide all needed vessels or aircrafts on their own, to meet the operational requirements. "That's" why IN has to import just as IAF does! The only difference is, that the naval industrial sector has more government and private shipyards to provide products, while IAF is dependent on ADA and HAL alone, just as naval aviation is dependent on ADA/HAL and why IN prefers to import aircrafts only.

They were asking for Mk2 with all the improved components from the word go.

Wrong, they were asking for an LCA version, that meets the operational requirements that were promised to them. MK2 was not meant to be a high tech fighter, but primarily a fix of the flight performance problems => higher thrust engine. That's why a suitable engine was evaluated and selected long ago, but ADA once again failed IAF and the country, to develop MK2 in time, because they delayed IOC/FOC in the first place!

IAF is okay with MKI which is operating with BARS PESA and is also okay with the proposed ZHUK upgradation which is running probably 5 or 6 years late. But it is not adapting a stage wise upgrade for Tejas which is a logical thing around world.

Factually wrong as well!
IAF inducted MKI in the early 2000s with PESA, but insists on AESA for it's upgrade now. That's the same process as for LCA, that got EL2032 in IOC/FOC and hopefully will get EL2052 in MK1A. The difference is, Bars was nearly 2 decades operational before it gets replaced with newer technology, while LCA IOC/FOC are still in the process to get inducted, because they are nearly a decade delayed!
FOC was initially planned for 2008, later revised to 2012. So even if you take the revised date, that puts 1 decade of operational service between FOC and MK1. But thx to ADAs great work, we now plan with FOC in 2019 only, with a radar that is outdated by then. "That's" why there is a short time frame between EL2032 and EL2052 in LCA and why MK1A needs AESA just as the Super MKI upgrade.

IAF inducted a Multi role fighter Mirage, but then again in Kargil had to take a massive overhaul and had to order LGB kits and pods from Israel for bombing mission. So who was responsible for this plight? DRDO/ HAL or IAF?

First of all, why do you try to distract from the fact, that even 2 decades after Kargil, DRDO has no LGB?
Secondly, you really need to get your facts right. IAF bought the Mirage with French 2000lb LGBs, which however were too big for basic CAS. They additionally ordered US 1000lb LGBs which were delivered with faulty parts. That's when Israeli assistance was gained, to modify bombs.
Btw, in 2011 IAF ordered the Mirage 2000 upgrade, including the replacement of the French 2000lb bombs and since no indigenous alternative was available, guess what they had to do? Exactly import an Israeli bomb instead.

Import is not a choice, but a necessity for Indian forces, until our industry can deliver alternatives that meet the operational requirements!

 

[Sancho]

As of today, I see nothing lacking on part of HAL. they have "go ahead" to produce only 16 lca, 12 of which have been delivered. Remaining 4 in in different stages of assembly. The rest 24 cannot apparently be started till foc is achieved, it will take about 8-9months from foc to assemble first aircraft. That's enough time for the remaining 4. The blame, lies between iaf and ADA.

HALs fault is the delay in production of IOC so far, anything else is development and certification related, which is purely ADAs responsibility and why they need to be blamed primarily. Sadly, the fighter is named as HAL LCA Tejas and not as ADA LCA Tejas, that's why the blame is largely misdirected.

 

[dumdumdum]

Is there anyway that these "who screwed up Tejas" discussions be banned going forward? What value do they add other than 2 debaters first getting into long rants ...and then becoming personal...abusing each other..finally either getting banned or the thread getting locked(worst outcome).

There will forever be people who will feel it was IAF's fault and people who will feel it was HAL/ADA's fault. The truth most probably is somewhere in between...

 

[Sancho]

Look at the underlined part. IN is secondary user of LCA. But even then they are supporting the project. Wish IAF too could have taken up a same approach.

Sorry I missed that part earlier and once again you are mistaken. IN is involved in the NLCA tech demonstrator programme, because they wanted India to develop naval fighter design and development expertise, just as IAF wanted the LCA programme to be the base of Indias future aviation industry.
But while IAF ordered the underperfoming MK1 and started the MK2 development to fix issues, IN rejected the MK2 and orders foreign fighters instead.

It's strange how you complain about IAF buying foreign fighters, although they are buying them next to LCA, but are ok with IN not buying a single NLCA and only foreign fighters, as long as you can claim they supported NLCA more.
If they are so supportive, why haven't they ordered NLCA at least as a trainer aircraft for training at INS Hansa?

Interestingly, the same admiral that rejected NLCA as not capable and delayed, is now usIng it to get approval for IAC 2, a rather obvious bluff:

 

[Sancho]

There will forever be people who will feel it was IAF's fault and people who will feel it was HAL/ADA's fault. The truth most probably is somewhere in between...

And that's exactly why people need to distinguish between facts and personal feelings, because if there is no understanding what the role of HAL is in the LCA programme, you can't say what they are responsible for, be it good or bad.
The same goes for IAF, where people need to understand, what operational requirements are, before they blame IAF for asking too much.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

After burner section weighs about 60% of the core section. Also, the size and space for 2 engine will be much higher

In length they shall be small. Width may increase a bit which can be adjusted in space available in engine section.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

In length they shall be small. Width may increase a bit which can be adjusted in space available in engine section.

With after burner, length will not be small. The width is not just about width of the plane but the right centre of gravity. How will you balance all these? By making a new design? The whole point of LCA MK2 is to simply improvise on MK1 with addition of fuel and payload without altering flight dynamics much

 

[HariPrasad-1]

With after burner, length will not be small. The width is not just about width of the plane but the right centre of gravity. How will you balance all these? By making a new design? The whole point of LCA MK2 is to simply improvise on MK1 with addition of fuel and payload without altering flight dynamics much

Where did I say that we can simply take out single engine and put 2 engine instead. There shall be some changes but they will not take much time to redesign and incorporate. Rather than designing an all new plane, this will be much easier to make some design changes and make a twine engine plane if Indian navy wants it. Each and every plane of the world has come a long way since they introduced initially. We should begin MK1 production and simultaneously design and test MK1+. By the time mk1 + goes into production, we can go for design and testing Mk1 twine engine.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Where did I say that we can simply take out single engine and put 2 engine instead. There shall be some changes but they will not take much time to redesign and incorporate. Rather than designing an all new plane, this will be much easier to make some design changes and make a twine engine plane if Indian navy wants it. Each and every plane of the world has come a long way since they introduced initially. We should begin MK1 production and simultaneously design and test MK1+. By the time mk1 + goes into production, we can go for design and testing Mk1 twine engine.

Planes are designed around engine. So, changing engine size, thrust or configuration is like changing the plane itself. All other upgrades not involving aerodynamic aspects are doable with minimal effort. But ones that involves aerodynamics change in a significant manner will need redesign