Final operational clearance for LCA in June 2015

[Abingdonboy]

why didn't India just decide to license build the Mirage 2000-5 MK2???
could of had a few hundred of them by now.

Look at the history of the MMRCA (originally MRCA) procurement. The original plan back in the early 00s was to licence build 126 or so M2ks in India- that is what the IAF had started. But the GoI/MoD intervened, and saw this huge deal as an opportunity to transform the Indian aerospace industry and opened the deal to multiple contenders and added the "Medium" element to the MRCA making it the MMRCA procurement.

In the meantime Dassualt closed down the Mirage 2000 line for good and that option was lost forever......

 

[Abingdonboy]

so let's just say the Rafale deal is $20 billion

The Rafale deal is NOT $20BN bro, closer to $16BN of which $8BN will be invested back into India as part of the offsets requirement.

 

[Screambowl]

LCA has become a joke now. The clearance never clears and then comes again another clearance before the previous one gets cleared. What kind of Nonsense is this! IAF is not interested in this aircraft that is for sure, they need Velayti ones. Only a war is the clearance fo this aircrafts, because it will do or die situation.


Every one is testing their weapons in a war zone, even China is testing it through Pakistan. We need to act similarly. Otherwise be it 100 times cleared, IAF will not say Yes to it.

 

[RISING SUN]

LCA has become a joke now. The clearance never clears and then comes again another clearance before the previous one gets cleared. What kind of Nonsense is this! IAF is not interested in this aircraft that is for sure, they need Velayti ones. Only a war is the clearance fo this aircrafts, because it will do or die situation.


Every one is testing their weapons in a war zone, even China is testing it through Pakistan. We need to act similarly. Otherwise be it 100 times cleared, IAF will not say Yes to it.

Mate LCA cleared for four tons of useful load with BVRs and ECMs. Thank you.

 

[dray]

@Abingdonboy @sancho @Capt.Popeye @sandy_3126 Isn't LCA MK1 better than our old Mig 21s? If yes, then why IAF is not ordering more MK1 to replace the aging fleet of Mig 21 till the time MK2 is ready, especially when we have a falling squadron strength and Mig 21s have become accident prone because of its age? Practically we can have 100-140 MK1s to replace Migs till the time MK2 is ready, and who knows IAF won't aspire for more advanced MK3 when MK2 is ready!! Our original plan was to urgently replace Mig 21s with LCA, so when we can do that now, why aren't we doing that as our first priority?

 

[sancho]

Isn't LCA MK1 better than our old Mig 21s? If yes, then why IAF is not ordering more MK1 to replace the aging fleet of Mig 21 till the time MK2 is ready, especially when we have a falling squadron strength and Mig 21s have become accident prone because of its age?

Mainly answered here:
HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions | Page 679

It simply doesn't matter if LCA MK1 is more capable than 3rd gen Mig 21s, but that it meets the development and operational requirements of a 4th gen fighter.

Practically we can have 100-140 MK1s to replace Migs till the time MK2 is ready

Not even close!

We hardly will have the 4 x MK1s by mid next year, that was suppose to be delivered this year, which delays the production of 8 that were initially planned for the next year and only by 2016 the production peak of 16 can be achieved =>

2015 - possibly 8 to 10 fighters
2016 - 16 (total 24 to 26)
2017 - 16 (total 30 to 32)
2018 - 16 (40 + 6 to 8 additional, maybe N-LCA for IN)
2019 - planned production start for MK2

IAF will still need 400 light class aircraft in next 2 decade | Page 2


IAF had shown it's commitment to LCA by ordering not only 1 but even a 2nd squadron of MK1 + 4 squads of MK2 before IOC or even the design changes of MK2 were finished, but they are not responsible for development delays.

Look at it this way, you want to build a new house, because you current one is too old. You set up requirements and a time line with the construction company, but the company mess things up. The work is delayed and promised features are not according to what you wanted. Do you accept the house because it's still better and more modern than your current one, or do you insist on fulfilling the contracts and to get what you actually wanted?

 

[SQ8]

Look at it this way, you want to build a new house, because you current one is too old. You set up requirements and a time line with the construction company, but the company mess things up. The work is delayed and promised features are not according to what you wanted. Do you accept the house because it's still better and more modern than your current one, or do you insist on fulfilling the contracts and to get what you actually wanted?

You change the contract around to insist that the House now meets the new requirements for a building that have changed since the delays happened. You insist that this does not lead to a loss of living space nor should it lead to issues in plumbing, wiring and so on because of the new requirements(that were caused by the company's delays). You are willing to pay only the inflation costs and not those that the company promised for the product then.

Otherwise, you skip building that house.. sell the plot for whatever its worth and materials... count you losses and buy a house elsewhere that is current, updated and ready to go.

 

[sancho]

You change the contract around to insist that the House now meets the new requirements for a building that have changed since the delays happened.

The building doesn't change because of the delays, requirements changes (MK1, MK2, MK3...), but the point here is, do you accept the house without fulfilling the initial requirements, just based on the fact that it's better than the old house you live in? Would you?

 

[SQ8]

The building doesn't change because of the delays, requirements changes (MK1, MK2, MK3...), but the point here is, do you accept the house without fulfilling the initial requirements, just based on the fact that it's better than the old house you live in? Would you?

But in case the structure is changing because of the requirements. What is the Mk.2 will embody much less of the Mk.1.. it will be a very different aircraft.. much like the Rafale C was to the Rafale A.. except in this case the size difference is reversed..you dont see the french operating a Rafale A just because they built it.
Hence, the original house is not something that should have been accepted just for the sake of getting it because it was built by your neighbourhood builder. Rather, the original house can still be sold to someone else that may want it with those requirements.

 

[Derolo]

People on this thread calling Python a BVR

Tejas FOC will be cleared sometime in 2016.

The IOC squadron will gets its first plane SP-1 delivered next year alone with SP-2 and SP-3 as SP-1 has been partially completed this year. Production should pick upto 4 by 2016.

IOC squadron delivered by 2020. Then FOC delivered by 2024. Tejas Mk2 can start production around 2025.

Courtesy HAL.

 

[sancho]

But in case the structure is changing because of the requirements. What is the Mk.2 will embody much less of the Mk.1.. it will be a very different aircraft..

Because of the requirements of Indian Navy for N-LCA, not because of the requirements of IAF! The airframe changes are needed to fit the additional fuel tanks, or avionics, just as it is IN that requires AESA, while IAF didn't stated that and might take the MK2 with the puls doppler MMR too.
If it were as you say, IAF never had placed the follow order of the 2nd squadron at all and insisted on the MK2 only. But as stated above they have shown their commitment to MK1 and MK2 at a time where LCA was far behind the development and not even close to being produced and if the IOC / FOC could had been done earlier, they might even had gone for a 3rd squad which then could had been possible according to the production time frames.

You didn't answered the question though!

but the point here is, do you accept the house without fulfilling the initial requirements, just based on the fact that it's better than the old house you live in? Would you?

 

[Indrajith]

When rockets fired by ISRO were falling from the sky - all this pessimist was against it - see how they deliver now, there needs always small steps to learn how to walk give them time let them do their job - No hurry take your time we need an organization like ISRO from HAL

 

[sathya]

The building doesn't change because of the delays, requirements changes (MK1, MK2, MK3...), but the point here is, do you accept the house without fulfilling the initial requirements, just based on the fact that it's better than the old house you live in? Would you?

Yes , I would accept

When the roof of old house is going to fall..

Then it means mig -21 is still holding on,
IAF will induct LCA mk1 more , when things get disastrous , not just yet.

 

[greatone]

The building doesn't change because of the delays, requirements changes (MK1, MK2, MK3...), but the point here is, do you accept the house without fulfilling the initial requirements, just based on the fact that it's better than the old house you live in? Would you?

Yes I would.Especially since my brother owns the company that built the house and I know that with my business he can become an international conglomerate.

 

[sancho]

Yes , I would accept

When the roof of old house is going to fall..

True, but thankfully IAF was smart enough to not make them dependent on LCA only and opted for more Su 30s and M-MRCA as ready and proven alternatives that can be inducted now or at the same time as LCA to cover the Mig 21 and 27 problems.

Yes I would.Especially since my brother owns the company that built the house and I know that with my business he can become an international conglomerate.

Yes because the bad reputation of delayed timeframes and not delivering according to contracted standards will surely increase the demand of that house from this contractor.