Ajai Shukla: Making the Tejas fly

[Kloitra]

I started this thread because I wanted others to comment on HAL, and its shortcomings. Not on the author. I request everyone to keep the focus on HAL, and not Ajay Shukla.

 

[MilSpec]

I started this thread because I wanted others to comment on HAL, and its shortcomings. Not on the author. I request everyone to keep the focus on HAL, and not Ajay Shukla.

The author Ajai Shukla has put a major chunk of the blame for inadequacies of LCA project on Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and exonerated IAF and ADA. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

ADA is the prime design agency for LCA, which to begin with was a big mistake, Instead of giving HAL the prime developmental lead on LCA, MoD with the blessings of IAF decided to build a new developmental agency from scratch. This was the first prime mistake.

Developing a prototype and developing the the entire production line and tooling for aircraft are two completely different things.
HAL excels at production systems and historically has never been given any funding for R&D unlike DRDO and CO.
HAL's funds and profits are audited and needs to remain a profitable entity unlike a DRDO/ADA which is almost a backhole for taxpayers money.
HAL when has received R&D opportunities has very efficiently used it's own resources and what it could obtain from france, russia and israel to make exceptional upgrades to existing platforms
Doesn't matter who claim to be responsible for MKI's and Bison subsystem, I personally knew a lot of brilliant engineers who were the driving force and architects of these programs. All of them from HAL Nasik Division!
ALH and LCH are standing testament to project management skills of HAL (banglore helicopter complex ), which in ADA/DRDO are non-existent

IAF:
IAF is more than happy to jump in the laps of rosoboron, and RAC when it comes to paper planes, and when you want dedicated line from HAL you come up with an order book of 48 aircrafts?

If IAF wants to take the MK2 seriously, the most important step is kick out ADA and make HAL the prime developmental agency for the aircraft and order 300 aircraft in 3 tranches, I can challenge that the first MK2 production variant will be out of the factories within 3 years with a production rate of at least 15-20 aircraft's per year.

Credibility of HAL has been challenged by quite a few on this forum including this $hithead of an author. Show me the one incidence of negligence/malpractice/production error pointed by black box on 21 bisons, Jaguars, MKI's.

 

[Kloitra]

The author Ajai Shukla has put a major chunk of the blame for inadequacies of LCA project on Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and exonerated IAF and ADA. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

ADA is the prime design agency for LCA, which to begin with was a big mistake, Instead of giving HAL the prime developmental lead on LCA, MoD with the blessings of IAF decided to build a new developmental agency from scratch. This was the first prime mistake.

ADA is an nodal agency. More than being just a development agency, it oversee management. Considering Indian bureaucracy, it would have been impossible for to have a JV with 100 or so different research labs around India, select and buy from foreign vendors. The agency was established after a previous failure of HAL for such development. It could not even buy a foreign engine.

Developing a prototype and developing the the entire production line and tooling for aircraft are two completely different things.
HAL excels at production systems and historically has never been given any funding for R&D unlike DRDO and CO.
HAL's funds and profits are audited and needs to remain a profitable entity unlike a DRDO/ADA which is almost a backhole for taxpayers money.

Unlike HAL, DRDO is a pure research institute, and is supposed to use money, not earn it. And for the tiny amount they get each year as budget, they are doing excellent job. HAL is more of an limited company. It is SUPPOSED to earn money. And they do so by doing assembling work. Tell me a single HAL developed product (Dhruv, for eg.) which is earning profit overall - development + manufacture.

HAL when has received R&D opportunities has very efficiently used it's own resources and what it could obtain from france, russia and israel to make exceptional upgrades to existing platforms
Doesn't matter who claim to be responsible for MKI's and Bison subsystem, I personally knew a lot of brilliant engineers who were the driving force and architects of these programs. All of them from HAL Nasik Division!
ALH and LCH are standing testament to project management skills of HAL (banglore helicopter complex ), which in ADA/DRDO are non-existent

When you compare DRDO and HAL, why do you forget all the development from DRDO, from missiles to food for soldiers on Siachin? All HAL has done is assemble. Only worthy mention is Dhruv. What else have they developed? I agree that there are brilliant engineers and researchers in HAL, so are in DRDO and every govt research institute.

IAF:
IAF is more than happy to jump in the laps of rosoboron, and RAC when it comes to paper planes, and when you want dedicated line from HAL you come up with an order book of 48 aircrafts?

Which aircraft has IAF ordered to replace mig 21? It is still waiting for LCA as its tier 3 aircraft. Let the development finish first. The engine was uncertain till 2008/09, and this is only one of the problems which we can see on the surface. IAF is doing a fine job, the only thing I could blame it for is it could have relaxed its requirement a bit.

If IAF wants to take the MK2 seriously, the most important step is kick out ADA and make HAL the prime developmental agency for the aircraft and order 300 aircraft in 3 tranches, I can challenge that the first MK2 production variant will be out of the factories within 3 years with a production rate of at least 15-20 aircraft's per year.

Previous experience show that HAL is unable to do managerial work. Actually it is the problem of all govt agencies. No correlation with each other. This is what ada is needed for.

Credibility of HAL has been challenged by quite a few on this forum including this $hithead of an author. Show me the one incidence of negligence/malpractice/production error pointed by black box on 21 bisons, Jaguars, MKI's.

The problem is not with the finished product, but the process.

 

[MilSpec]

ADA is an nodal agency. More than being just a development agency, it oversee management. Considering Indian bureaucracy, it would have been impossible for to have a JV with 100 or so different research labs around India, select and buy from foreign vendors. The agency was established after a previous failure of HAL for such development. It could not even buy a foreign engine.

Product development in HAL is mandated by MoD and planning commission and IAF and not by HAL. HAL only decides on the assimilation of technology transfer to transition into full production.

Unlike HAL, DRDO is a pure research institute, and is supposed to use money, not earn it. And for the tiny amount they get each year as budget, they are doing excellent job. HAL is more of an limited company. It is SUPPOSED to earn money. And they do so by doing assembling work. Tell me a single HAL developed product (Dhruv, for eg.) which is earning profit overall - development + manufacture.

For the tiny amount!!!!!!!!! It's a black hole for taxpayers money. Thats about it. Hint: All israeli subsytems on MKI were initially promised by DRDO.

When you compare DRDO and HAL, why do you forget all the development from DRDO, from missiles to food for soldiers on Siachin? All HAL has done is assemble. Only worthy mention is Dhruv. What else have they developed? I agree that there are brilliant engineers and researchers in HAL, so are in DRDO and every govt research institute.

To answer your question; what else have they developed, the onus is what else were they allowed to develop. Every time we have successfully rammed our way through to indigenise certain technologies, IAF/MoD has vehemently fought us to please the russians.

Which aircraft has IAF ordered to replace mig 21? It is still waiting for LCA as its tier 3 aircraft. Let the development finish first. The engine was uncertain till 2008/09, and this is only one of the problems which we can see on the surface. IAF is doing a fine job, the only thing I could blame it for is it could have relaxed its requirement a bit.

The initial Plan was to ensure re-engine maruts for an interim strike a/c role, instead IAF jumped at mig23. As far as LCA is concerned, ADA initially changed their CFRP composition nearly 10 times, Without proper article testing protocols, went ahead and froze the materials for the air frame. Inconsistent tooling/fixture/mould design, Specifications for autoclaves mismatched. When it came to production design ADA and associated DRDO labs were almost in Kumbh mela. The protoypes you see flying wouldn't have passed a single DGQCA certification if HAL didn't save the sinking project.
As far as IAF is concerned, go to a BRD station and look at the overhaul practices...dont even get me started on IAF and their priorities.

Previous experience show that HAL is unable to do managerial work. Actually it is the problem of all govt agencies. No correlation with each other. This is what ada is needed for.

And what previous experience are you referring to, Please do enlighten me on that. On one hand your MoD wants curtail every scope of developmental work to import every bolt from russia, and IAF complains there is not enough Product development, and it's all HAL's fault.

The problem is not with the finished product, but the process.

Problem is with production design, incompetence of design agencies, Extensive mis-management schedules from the "Nodal" agency and it's affiliates.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Well, i can Defence PSU/MOD is have infested with Agents which do not want India to get success or else how can their foreign clients get money?

 

[zaxcolix]

Product development in HAL is mandated by MoD and planning commission and IAF and not by HAL. HAL only decides on the assimilation of technology transfer to transition into full production.

HAL is an independent profitable Aircraft Manufacturer who has never bothered to invest significant time & resource in R&D. It has decided to stagnate as a 'work shop'. It has refused to evolve nor has it nurtured its VENDORS to evolve. I hope you do not need MoD and IAF mandate to help you vendor evolve. Vendor management for HAL means screw the vendor. Ambanis are known to screw their vendors ....HAL does better than them !

Organizations like Boeing does only Project Management and Quality, everything else is done by its Vendors. They invest time & money into vendor development..and their vendors love to work with them. Their vendors have gone on to become large Aerospace companies themselves. HAL vendors eek out a living while HAL makes huge profits which is given back to the government so that their employees get bonus while vendors starve.

For the tiny amount!!!!!!!!! It's a black hole for taxpayers money. Thats about it. Hint: All israeli subsytems on MKI were initially promised by DRDO.

'Black Hole' called research are deemed important for human progress and scientific evolution.....these include research into stale subjects like theoretical physics, dull subjects like mathematics, fundamental research, stealth, nano tech, BMD, aero engine, radars etc..(btw all Indian organizations are audited, including DRDO)

To answer your question; what else have they developed, the onus is what else were they allowed to develop. Every time we have successfully rammed our way through to indigenise certain technologies, IAF/MoD has vehemently fought us to please the russians.

Poor Multi Billion $ HAL with employees who are not accountable and cannot be fired is held back by the big bad IAF/MoD

The initial Plan was to ensure re-engine maruts for an interim strike a/c role, instead IAF jumped at mig23. As far as LCA is concerned, ADA initially changed their CFRP composition nearly 10 times, Without proper article testing protocols, went ahead and froze the materials for the air frame. Inconsistent tooling/fixture/mould design, Specifications for autoclaves mismatched. When it came to production design ADA and associated DRDO labs were almost in Kumbh mela. The protoypes you see flying wouldn't have passed a single DGQCA certification if HAL didn't save the sinking project.
As far as IAF is concerned, go to a BRD station and look at the overhaul practices...dont even get me started on IAF and their priorities.

...instead of returning back the money to govt as 'profit' ..only if HAL leadership had the courage and conviction to actually develop something despite odds they would have some respect and people would listen to their crib. As of now it commands no respect from anyone. Inconsistent tooling/fixture/mould design, Specifications for autoclaves mismatched are all standard issues in production. Do you think there are no production mismatch/issues at Boeing ? ..discussing IAF is outside the scope and would digress from the real..

And what previous experience are you referring to, Please do enlighten me on that. On one hand your MoD wants curtail every scope of developmental work to import every bolt from russia, and IAF complains there is not enough Product development, and it's all HAL's fault.

Let HAL focus on gaining confidence of DGAQA first, then IAF next ...then it can blame MoD for their short comings.

Problem is with production design, incompetence of design agencies, Extensive mis-management schedules from the "Nodal" agency and it's affiliates.

Rather than blame ADA/DRDO for their design which HAL cannot manufacture ...maybe they should focus their energies on how to manufacture products that have been designed !

 

[Kloitra]

Product development in HAL is mandated by MoD and planning commission and IAF and not by HAL. HAL only decides on the assimilation of technology transfer to transition into full production.

If HAL's management had any will to do any research, no one would stop them. It is typical govt job problem, no extra work till forced to do.

For the tiny amount!!!!!!!!! It's a black hole for taxpayers money. Thats about it. Hint: All israeli subsytems on MKI were initially promised by DRDO.

DRDO is more than just an avionics research institute. Do you know its budget? In 2003-4, it was hardly 2300 Cr Rs. It was meager during 99-00. What else do you expect from them? Search for budget of rafael, or other Israeli firms and compare it with DRDO. And keep in mind that DRDO researches on every thing, pin to plane.

To answer your question; what else have they developed, the onus is what else were they allowed to develop. Every time we have successfully rammed our way through to indigenise certain technologies, IAF/MoD has vehemently fought us to please the russians.



The initial Plan was to ensure re-engine maruts for an interim strike a/c role, instead IAF jumped at mig23. As far as LCA is concerned, ADA initially changed their CFRP composition nearly 10 times, Without proper article testing protocols, went ahead and froze the materials for the air frame. Inconsistent tooling/fixture/mould design, Specifications for autoclaves mismatched. When it came to production design ADA and associated DRDO labs were almost in Kumbh mela. The protoypes you see flying wouldn't have passed a single DGQCA certification if HAL didn't save the sinking project.
As far as IAF is concerned, go to a BRD station and look at the overhaul practices...dont even get me started on IAF and their priorities.



And what previous experience are you referring to, Please do enlighten me on that. On one hand your MoD wants curtail every scope of developmental work to import every bolt from russia, and IAF complains there is not enough Product development, and it's all HAL's fault.

I was talking about Marut, HAL could not finish the product, and IAF had to go for Mig-23. There is just a 'slight' difference between your story and mine. IAF gave sufficient time for further development of marut. But could not wait for long, having fresh memories of 62/65/72.

Problem is with production design, incompetence of design agencies, Extensive mis-management schedules from the "Nodal" agency and it's affiliates.

I dont praise ADA either, it is also a govt institute with same disease. But without it, the entire program would have been in worse sh*t, HAL could not have fared any better alone. ADA is supposed to coordinate between various research labs, which HAL cant.

 

[MilSpec]

@zaxcolix :
Vendor development: Historically manufacturing technology base has been very poor in India. HAL has been a pioneer in co-development with vendor's to indigenise imported russian system. Air delivery systems with KPCL is one of the examples that have replaced every russian system in India. Similar examples in ground system, refuelers, NC systems, gauges, carbide cutting tools, material research, aircraft grade al with hindalco, indigenisation of orbital riveting syste, development of jo-bolt tools are few examples that come to my mind from my tenure in HAL. I would like to know what are the basis for your allegations wrt to vendors


Research Funding: @zaxcolix: I have no issues with DRDO getting funding... let them get more if they want, I will not disclose the areas of research but in my own own experience more than 26 big ticket research proposals were denied to HAL. As far as research funding of HAL by it's own profits, again cannot be done because your hawks from MoD and IAF in planning commission who are also part of the board of director for HAL also allot the funding for operations, where research, Rev engg are big No No.
@Kloitra in your opinion DRDO's shortcomings are shortage in budget hence they can't develop projects as efficiently as others; while you expect HAL to perform miracles with no research budget at all.

Poor Multi Billion $ HAL with employees who are not accountable and cannot be fired is held back by the big bad IAF/MoD

I am not sure if you are aware of the working of MoD and IAF. If you were you would understand. Anyways if that is your opinion ... good for you...
@Kloitra
Marut: The chief manager I worked under was involved in the project to re-engine the marut when he was starting out as an engineer. I am well aware of what IAF did there. Did you know Kurt Tank very heavily opposed getting the Orpheus in the first place which was practically shoved down the throat by IAF.

Rather than blame ADA/DRDO for their design which HAL cannot manufacture ...maybe they should focus their energies on how to manufacture products that have been designed !

I have been a design/test engineer for 8 years working in composites, You can conceive the most brilliant design and tooling on work stations and simulations, but If you do not know about manufacturing practices and production design, none of that will translate into anything valuable. That exactly is the problem with ADA and assoc. As far HAL's manufacturing capabilities are concerned, I have the greatest respect for them, and that's where I will leave it.

I am not blaming ADA for discrepency in design or mismanagement, I am just saying they are not competent to manage the project as the lead, If IAF wants LCA MK2 as a viable aircraft, they need to kick out ADA.

 

[sms]

@Kloitra/ @zaxcolix / @sandy_3126

I want to second what Sandy has mentioned in his/ her post ..

• HAL Facilities/ Capabilities - I've worked/ consulted with HAL (Lucknow/ Nasik) on manufacturing, repair of few sub systems and I'm glad to say that they have/ had excellent infrastructure and workforce with mixed attitude. They people with utmost dedication ready to work beyond call of duty/ 9 to 5 guys and usual Govt employee attitude more interested in lunch/ snack breaks. In short HAL has very good infra required to produce quality products. They have well behaved (could be better) and capable work force.

• R&D - HAL get's their fund allocation from GOI they do not get free hand to spend money they want. They aren't private company who can choose what they want to do the earning they made. So if they aren't inventing lot on new projects we must blame GOI and partially them as they might not be lobbying enough (which I doubt)

 

[Kloitra]

[MENTION=143965]
Research Funding: @zaxcolix: I have no issues with DRDO getting funding... let them get more if they want, I will not disclose the areas of research but in my own own experience more than 26 big ticket research proposals were denied to HAL. As far as research funding of HAL by it's own profits, again cannot be done because your hawks from MoD and IAF in planning commission who are also part of the board of director for HAL also allot the funding for operations, where research, Rev engg are big No No.
@Kloitra in your opinion DRDO's shortcomings are shortage in budget hence they can't develop projects as efficiently as others; while you expect HAL to perform miracles with no research budget at all.


I am not sure if you are aware of the working of MoD and IAF. If you were you would understand. Anyways if that is your opinion ... good for you...
@Kloitra
Marut: The chief manager I worked under was involved in the project to re-engine the marut when he was starting out as an engineer. I am well aware of what IAF did there. Did you know Kurt Tank very heavily opposed getting the Orpheus in the first place which was practically shoved down the throat by IAF.

I bought DRDO's budget for the point that it failed to develop several key technologies. And I oppose the point that it is a 'blackhole' for public money. For the little amount they get, they have developed some excellent products. But, that is all.

I no way do I say that DRDO is better than HAL or others. My personal experience was in a DAE lab, and I come to realize, specially after working in a lab in Canada that all Indian govt institutes are equally incompetent. All are plagued with similar problems. Also do you think that if top management of HAL wanted a research budget, they could have been denied? They did, after all develop a helicopter.

I have been a design/test engineer for 8 years working in composites, You can conceive the most brilliant design and tooling on work stations and simulations, but If you do not know about manufacturing practices and production design, none of that will translate into anything valuable. That exactly is the problem with ADA and assoc. As far HAL's manufacturing capabilities are concerned, I have the greatest respect for them, and that's where I will leave it.

I admit I have no personal experience with HAL, all my knowledge is from third party. Also, everyone can have different perspective, so I would not argue.

I am not blaming ADA for discrepency in design or mismanagement, I am just saying they are not competent to manage the project as the lead, If IAF wants LCA MK2 as a viable aircraft, they need to kick out ADA.

Point was that ADA is a nodal agency. It is supposed to take the lead and correlate between various labs etc. If you think they are incompetent, than without them forget Tejas. You wont find anyone who could better them, equal yes, but better, no. It has nothing to do with competence of management of HAL, rather bureaucracy, red tapes, and the excellent inter-office relations in Indian govt.

 

[MilSpec]

@Kloitra:
Apart from LCA's tooling molds I am not aware of much of the project especially the avionics part. My main problem with MoD's decision with ADA and bringing in 20 different labs lies in the fact that, HAL's different divisions have specialized in manufacturing different aspects of the Russian subsytems for last 40 years. In the process they have developed excellent capabilities is manufacturing. I have no issues with design aspects of LCA, but ADA apparently has insisted on taking the lead role in defining the tooling and process engineering for the assembly which they have had no experience in.

I am frustrated by the developmental time for LCA especially the Last 10 years in which the aircraft could have easily transitioned into first tranche of production model.

Few key aspects that need to be done now in my opinion have to be:

1> IAF needs to confirm atleast 300 mk2 aircrafts, 200 combat and 100 trainers (which will serve as lead in combat trainers) for IAF, so that it's commercially viable for HAL to dedicate bigger assembly lines for LCA mk2
2> MK2 design changes needs to be done in collaboration with HAL. The design changes need to be given to HAL, and HAL needs to get it's own expertise and go to ADA get them incorporated in the design, just like HAL did with the UPG program, Bison, and MKI program
3> HAL should be given complete document release control for LCA mk2
4> Private players like L&T, Tata and other private players should be encouraged to participate in a bigger role in this aircraft to get a headstart in fighter jet business.

Additionally ensure ADA document release for AMCA goes through HAL, and HAL needs to be the primary design consultant for AMCA prototype.

 

[xyxmt]

what if Tejas doesnt fly at least it has good design, take that design to your enemies in case of war and threaten them with design.

 

[Kloitra]

@Kloitra:
Apart from LCA's tooling molds I am not aware of much of the project especially the avionics part. My main problem with MoD's decision with ADA and bringing in 20 different labs lies in the fact that, HAL's different divisions have specialized in manufacturing different aspects of the Russian subsytems for last 40 years. In the process they have developed excellent capabilities is manufacturing. I have no issues with design aspects of LCA, but ADA apparently has insisted on taking the lead role in defining the tooling and process engineering for the assembly which they have had no experience in.

Key term: assemble. HAL has assembled Russian parts. Major subsystems had to be researched and developed. Which, in the eyes of govt, HAL was unable to do. Truth we would not know, but I see no reason to doubt it. HAL could not have done a better job than specialized research labs.

About manufacturing, I will quote Shukla again. But this are comments of people from ADA/IAF:

Rs 1,500 cr more for combat aircraft Tejas as HAL fails to meet targets

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has allocated an additional Rs 1,500 crore to the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme, boosting its projected Rs 14,047 crore budget. The additional amount will be spent on a production line for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd ( HAL) to build 20 fighters that Indian Air Force (IAF) has ordered for its first Tejas squadron. The IAF has also promised another order for 20 more Tejas for its second squadron. Once the improved Mark II Tejas is developed, the IAF will field 6-7 Tejas squadrons (120-140 fighters).

This need for additional money arises from the inability of HAL, a public sector aerospace monopoly, to establish a production line that can build at least eight Tejas fighters a year. The production line that HAL set up two years ago on the priceless real estate that it holds in the heart of Bangalore has not yet produced a single Tejas fighter.

Briefing Business Standard the Director of the Aeronautical Development Agency ( ADA), P Subramanyam, who runs the LCA programme, explains that nobody realised that setting up a production line was a technology by itself. So far, ADA and HAL have built only prototypes and limited-series Tejas aircraft, producing individual parts one-by-one like a tailor making a suit. When HAL graduated to a standardised production line, it encountered serious difficulties.

“ADA and HAL have realised that creating a production line needs major effort… That realisation has come,” says Subramanyam.

So serious are the difficulties that ADA and HAL approached foreign aircraft manufacturers last year — including Eurofighter GmbH, which builds the Typhoon. The proposal to appoint a foreign consultant for the Tejas production line remains alive in the MoD.

Senior IAF officers express frustration that HAL has failed to set up a Tejas assembly line, though its primary activity for the preceding decades has been to build foreign aircraft on an assembly line under licence.

Air Marshal Pranab K Barbora, who retired as the IAF vice-chief two years ago, summarises the Air Force’s viewpoint: “HAL’s assembly line expertise is outdated by at least three decades. They have done nothing to upgrade their technology. Setting up a modern assembly line for the Tejas is far beyond HAL’s capabilities.”

Barbora says this is why the IAF lobbied hard to post a serving air marshal as HAL chief. Instead, the MoD appointed RK Tyagi, who has no experience in aeronautical development or manufacture.

Contacted repeatedly for comments, Tyagi did not respond to the calls.

ADA is defending HAL, with Subramanyam insisting that HAL would build the first 20 Tejas within two-and-a-half to three years. By then the fighter would have obtained final operational clearance (FOC) in its flight-testing programme and production can begin of the next 20 Tejas (which must be built to FOC standards).

This, says Subramanyam, will take another two-and-a-half years, i.e., be completed in 2018. By then, the Tejas Mark II will be tested and ready, and can enter series production.

What the ADA chief does not explain is: How will HAL, which cannot yet build even two Tejas fighters per year, build 20 fighters over the next three years?

The annual general meeting on Friday of ADA (which is a registered society under the MoD) was also clouded by delays in flight-testing, which Business Standard has reported, will delay the initial operational clearance ( IOC) of the Tejas until mid-2013 at the earliest.

For the IAF, which contemplates dangerously depleted squadron numbers, the big question is: When will the first two Tejas squadrons become operational?

Going by the lack of energy in HAL — which is struggling to build the last two limited series fighters and the first two series production Tejas — the IAF might have a longer wait than it is comfortable with.

If the above is true, it lays a counter to your point:

1> IAF needs to confirm atleast 300 mk2 aircrafts, 200 combat and 100 trainers (which will serve as lead in combat trainers) for IAF, so that it's commercially viable for HAL to dedicate bigger assembly lines for LCA mk2

Problem is HAL cant get the assembly line to work!

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

what if Tejas doesnt fly at least it has good design, take that design to your enemies in case of war and threaten them with design.

At least We are capable to design and built no wonder we design next new 6th gen fighter ? who knows, IAF have enough Superior plane then LCA , until LCA dont match the IAF other superior plane level it wont inducted . Standard are high only 100% number person will pass and 99% will fail, not unlike other countries where 50% is pass also

 

[kurup]

what if Tejas doesnt fly at least it has good design, take that design to your enemies in case of war and threaten them with design.

Nice idea from the citizen of a country who can only assemble their "joint" built fighter ..