We're beating around the same bush. Both HAL & IAF are at fault. HAL for usual babu slowness and govt like snail pace and IAF for expecting a very hifi fighter from the get go. Is Tejas good enough to replace aging MiG-21 ? Yes. Is it needed in large nos ? Yes. Then order it in large nos. Sadly this point or line of thinking is absent in IAF and HAL too to some extentActually Mk2 is the exact form of LCA IAF wanted. But we force feed them Mk1A instead.
Now don't think that I am anyhow against force feeding Mk1A, but the fund which would have gone for Mk2 has been rerouted to Mk1A. So next time they would obviously be sceptic of what is coming out of the stable.
So its not damage control, but just reiterating what the have considered.
How can that possibly happen? Tejas Mk2 is an almost entirely new airplane, whereas the Mk1A was an upgrade to the Mk1 which could be done to a series production SP-25.Wouldn't it be better if mk2 goes mk1a's way, meaning no rollout direct first flight.
The LRUs isn't it ? Aren't they validating them on the mk1A, the same that will go on the mk2? And do they have 2 teams to work on both?How can that possibly happen? Tejas Mk2 is an almost entirely new airplane, whereas the Mk1A was an upgrade to the Mk1 which could be done to a series production SP-25.
Same? The engines are different, we have a bigger airplane in the Mk2 than the Mk1 and while several systems will be derived from those on the Mk1, they will be different in many ways and all of them need to be thoroughly tested and certified. Remember the FCS is going to be different as well thanks to the new canard control surfaces. Landing gear will be beefier, aero structures sturdier to absorb higher loads on landing. Wings are being strengthened to take much higher payload with larger number of pylons including wing tip pylons.The LRUs isn't it ? Aren't they validating them on the mk1A, the same that will go on the mk2? And do they have 2 teams to work on both?
LCA is more like f18, lca mk1 is similar to f18abcd and mk2 similar to sh, and mk1a similar to f18cd aesa and sh got aesa first. Like wise mk1a getting upgrades developed for mk2/jaguar/su30mki/mig21 etc. ADA more focused on mk2 while hal upgrading mk1 with available tech.You cannot get Mk2 without going through Mk1A. I mean take a look at the F-35 program. USAF willingly got Block I and II even though those blocks did not achieve even IOC status let alone FOC. Block V is the one that will achieve FOC. Same thing happened with the F-16 program. You had Block 15, 20, 30, 40/42, 50/52, etc. Same thing with the Rafale program and Typhoon program.
No it is IAF being totally unrealistic about supporting a fighter program and bringing it to fruition. Nothing happens in a vacuum. You need to provide organic support on a continual basis. That is the hard lesson that needs to be nailed into IAF brass.
Reminds me of the Russian saying, "Better/Perfect is the enemy of good enough."I would disagree. In the short run, IAF is suffering because they still rely on Mig-21s and have not replaced the MIG-27s.
Unless you believe those 30-40 year old obsolete jets are better than Tejas Mk-1/1As, the air force has shot themselves in the foot thanks to their disdain for Indian products and love of phoren maal. We should have had half a dozen squadrons ordered and inducted by now, and would have cost just a few billion dollars. Woukd they be as good as the latest Gripens and Rafales? No. But they would be a match for anything the PAF has, full up squadrons and far better than what the IAF has stubbornly stuck with.
And suggesting that IAF should have waited for Tejas mj 2 is a familiar trick. Demand the perfect to avoid ordering the good, because phoren is best.