What's new

HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't expect huge difference in LCA Mark-II other than AESA and engine. its never gonna be Rafael or MKI in anything.

I don't, infact the I would prefer less changes, only modifications to meet the initial goals and a fast induction. That's why I don't like the N-LCA development, since it makes the whole LCA project only more complicated.
 
Indian Air Force wants to fill gas which will be created by phasing out Mig21, so LCA will be a great bird for that.
 
I don't, infact the I would prefer less changes, only modifications to meet the initial goals and a fast induction. That's why I don't like the N-LCA development, since it makes the whole LCA project only more complicated.

I feel that in a way it is good they went for N-LCA. It is important to gain experience to develop naval version. Hopefully next versions (MK II and AMCA) can utilize the experience of MK I (and also hopefully lessons will be learned from screw ups). Though we can argue that ADA may have bitten more than it can chew.
 
I feel that in a way it is good they went for N-LCA. It is important to gain experience to develop naval version. Hopefully next versions (MK II and AMCA) can utilize the experience of MK I (and also hopefully lessons will be learned from screw ups). Though we can argue that ADA may have bitten more than it can chew.

Such a large projects are not started just to get an experience but to have a production of working prototype. If we cannot achieve 100% goals in the planned time frame then there is no need to waste the resources in it. Waste of time and money knowingly is not a good practice.
 
Such a large projects are not started just to get an experience but to have a production of working prototype. If we cannot achieve 100% goals in the planned time frame then there is no need to waste the resources in it. Waste of time and money knowingly is not a good practice.

Well will you say the same thing about ALH Dhruv?
 
Such a large projects are not started just to get an experience but to have a production of working prototype. If we cannot achieve 100% goals in the planned time frame then there is no need to waste the resources in it. Waste of time and money knowingly is not a good practice.

So the long list of experimental projects that NASA, lockheed martin, northrop etc did comes into the category of waste of time and money? Many western fighters did not achieve their 100% goals when they were inducted, still they got inducted and with time achieved 100% goals.
 
I feel that in a way it is good they went for N-LCA. It is important to gain experience to develop naval version. Hopefully next versions (MK II and AMCA) can utilize the experience of MK I (and also hopefully lessons will be learned from screw ups). Though we can argue that ADA may have bitten more than it can chew.

As I often explain, you don't need a fully fledged fighter program to gain experince, that's what tech demo programs are for. I would have nothing against N-LCA, if we keep it at 5 to 10 x N-LCA MK1 prototypes, just to gain experience in navalising a fighter, we could even test it at shore based STOBAR facilities. But all the changes in LCA MK2, only to fit the requirements of IN too, caused further delays in the general LCA project and that should have been avoided.
 
As I often explain, you don't need a fully fledged fighter program to gain experince, that's what tech demo programs are for. I would have nothing against N-LCA, if we keep it at 5 to 10 x N-LCA MK1 prototypes, just to gain experience in navalising a fighter, we could even test it at shore based STOBAR facilities. But all the changes in LCA MK2, only to fit the requirements of IN too, caused further delays in the general LCA project and that should have been avoided.

No doubt in an ideal world the N-LCA should have been kept separate. But I wonder if the DRDO would have ever got funding for it had they run it as a technology demonstration just to gain experience only (to start with). I think a lot of things are driven/have been driven in DRDO by how to get funding for projects. So it was no surprise they tagged it with LCA to get IN on board. More customers more funds. It should have been clear to those in high offices (MOD) that this approach was full of inherent risks. But looks like they didn't bother about the risks or and if they did its not in the public domain.
 
The thing is, everyone knows about the problems associated and now trying to rectify the mistakes made in the past. Due to the huge magnitude of the LCA project, some past decision mistakes which we are now trying to correct delaying the project.

On the other hand, with LCA project India has learned a lot and by time they are improving. You always attack the Indian projects with same offensive, non-stop. It gives us the impression that you are not from neutral Taiwan/US but one of our immediate neighbour doing routine trolling. What is your native nation, you only know it. But if you come up with more balance observations w.r.t. Indian projects/situations, you will find people will hear you more attentively.

AS I had stated, I'm originally from Taiwan and now live in the US. I just share facts about all the countries out there. Among all the nationalities here, Indians and media from India are the most outrageous. So I call you guys out.
 
Dude i think you should go through the J10 programe or 4th Gen jet program..Started as j9 fighter jet project in 1969 and they abonded that prject only to restart it as J10 project....First flight 1998....

Chineese have habbit of changing the names of the project like Jf17 started as Super7 project in 1988...

If you judge an aircraft's developmental age through all of its ancestors, then we can safely say that all aircraft have been in development for 116 years since the first flight of the first aircraft.
 
Well will you say the same thing about ALH Dhruv?

The problem was ALH was built by HAL who knew about helicopters. ADA or GTRE had no idea about planes or Engines before they started LCA and Kaveri. That was a major fault. If MOD wanted they should have separated out HAL Engine division whihc has developed PTAE-7 and building adour and other engines and asked them to build Kaveri.
 
So the long list of experimental projects that NASA, lockheed martin, northrop etc did comes into the category of waste of time and money? Many western fighters did not achieve their 100% goals when they were inducted, still they got inducted and with time achieved 100% goals.

Neither we have luxury nor the resources as you quoted for US organisations. We want to be as frugal as possible in spending our limited resources. The best example is ISRO where they did not wasted their resources in 70's to launch man in the moon. Rather they built simple SLV's and satellites and now they are attempting GSLV. In science projects like of ISRO's, it is always good to experiment and if we don't get 100% results still we learn. On the other hand, if we use limited resources on defense project which is clearly not giving us the expected results than you are endangering the national security in the event of war. So one should think realistically in a time bound manner before taking up any ambitious project.
 
AS I had stated, I'm originally from Taiwan and now live in the US. I just share facts about all the countries out there. Among all the nationalities here, Indians and media from India are the most outrageous. So I call you guys out.

If you are from neutral country and still take Indian matters serious enough to make hard comments then its good. The only problem is if someone claims that they are from neutral country but target only one country and talk about only shortcomings of that country, suspicion is only obvious and justified.

Indian media can become very funny at the times and we all know it. As far as Indian nationalism, yes we are, but things becomes out of hand when other nationalities people say things about India but their own situation is much worse.

Well will you say the same thing about ALH Dhruv?

There is a big difference between ALH and LCA project. Engine used in ALH was not made only by India among other things.
 
No doubt in an ideal world the N-LCA should have been kept separate.

Not in an ideal world, but in a rational thinking India, because that is the common way all over the world, it's only India that thinks there is a need for fully fledged programs for every small version, mainly based on pride reasons and not on operational requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom