Yes weight issues, which translates into drag at some point in time. However, these weight issues are NOT design related.
Depends on which of the aircrafts we are talking, take LCH for example, the first design turned out to be too heavy and draggy as well, pylons, tail and air intakes needed to be re-designed.
Wrt LCA, overweight is an issue according to initial plans, but compared to other fighters in it's class, even LCA MK1 is pretty light and offers a good TWR too. So when it still has performance issues, what else than the design is the reason?
My impression was that the MK2 was taking care of the weight related issues. No?
I hope so, but they are actually increasing the weight by far, because of the changes that we know so far (streched fuselage, new internal fuel tanks, new engines and other systems), but it will be interessting to see what else will be changed.
BTW, if the design is an issue, what do you expect a design team to do at this stage of the game? Redesign the MK1? Just curious.
As stated, find out the problems and fix it for MK2, instead of simply going over to the next project. My problem is, that we have very poor planning and that we don't really finish our projects, before we already start to dream about others. We celebrate any baby step like the roll out of another prototype, while not a single fighter is in operational service yet, or would be useful to serve our forces and the security needs of India.
Like which ones?
As mentioned in my earlier post, LCA MK2, FGFA, armed Rustom, AURA UCAV, because all these aircrafts are meant to be in service earlier than AMCA and because they add more advantages to IAF too. The only field where AMCA really would be needed is, as a carrier fighter, because IN don't have a 5th. gen option, other than F35 so far. But then we have to develop it for the navy in first place and not only navalise a fighter developed for IAF.
I feel that the LCA is one of the best things to have happened in India.
I feel the same, that's why I want our officials to keep focusing on it and not beeing distracted from newer and shinier projects, without really finishing LCA. We need a reliable, cost-effective low end fighter that soon can be inducted to IAF, not dreams about a stealthy LCA MK3 or AMCA in 10 to 15 years.
On the other side, we don't need a "modest" (like IN itself describes N-LCA) carrier fighter in the short term, because we will have more capable Migs anyway. A naval AMCA in the long term would be more important and why anything beyond a N-LCA tech demonstrator currently is a waste of resources.