Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 18 Apr 2019 18:38

Do we even have an export version of LCA yet ? I suppose Malays are looking for SPORT which is not as capable as LCA Tejas itself.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Apr 2019 18:57

chola wrote:
yensoy wrote:
I am curious whom the Malaysian Air Force fighters are intended to fight. Singapore? Probably not. China? Most likely yes. So how do the JF-17s make sense to deter China?
Actually, it is Singapore. Singapore was once part of Malaysia. In fact, Singapore is a bit like Israel as an infidel speck in a sea of muslims. Both are huge trade partners with Cheen and are unlikely to fight it. Their main rivalry is historically with each other.

I agree. There are a lot of unresolved disputes between the two countries. Most importantly, many Singaporeans are of the opinion that Malaysia is acting against their interests. The separation of Singapore from the Malay Federation was very unpleasant too. Then, there is a feeling of how the Chinese Malay are treated under the garb of Bhumi Putra. The advent of Mahatir has exacerbated the situation. There has been an accentuated airspace and maritime boundary situation in the last few months and a temporary truce has just been struck. There are too many issues. Singapore is our closest ally in ASEAN and has just given us access to their Changi Naval base. We have deep economic and military relationship with them and they are growing.

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 18 Apr 2019 20:02

JTull wrote:
sudeepj wrote: ... co-cured, co-bonded composite, totally transparent to radar.
Can you please explain this statement further? Or give some links that we can read up on.

Only air is transparent to radar.
Styrofoam is reasonably good.
Composites reflect just because they dielectric constant is so high (even if their loss factor at L & X band is is perfect 0)

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 18 Apr 2019 20:14

Malaysia and Singapore have their issues for sure, they have even threatened each other with Singapore saying that turning off water is tantamount to declaration of war; however their arming is not directed at each other. Singapore has conscription, and the Singaporeans (males, who have by requirement served in the military) say that their arming is basically against China. All countries infringed by the seven or nine or eleven dashed line are under Chinese threat and need minimal credible deterrence against misadventures. Singapore isn't, yet is a prime economic and ethnic target for subversion.

Malaysia and China are hugely integrated economically and through expats living in each others' countries, besides the fabric of ASEAN keeps things under check. It's very unlikely that they will go to war, or are even arming against each other.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 18 Apr 2019 21:16

Haridas wrote:
JTull wrote:
Can you please explain this statement further? Or give some links that we can read up on.
Only air is transparent to radar.
Styrofoam is reasonably good.
Composites reflect just because they dielectric constant is so high (even if their loss factor at L & X band is is perfect 0)

Haridas ji, I am only repeating what is conventional wisdom on the forum.. that carbon composites are transparent to radar and thats why tejas has such a low radar signature.. If this is not true, my whole life is a lie.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Apr 2019 21:57

Folks lets keep the focus on the production progress and build up of supply chain.
Design question can go to the Mark 2 thread.

mridulmm · Post by **mridulmm** » 20 Apr 2019 10:10

Original source : https://www.flickr.com/photos/delhidefencereview/

Some more info on Mk1A

ASRAAM
Self forming and healing Mobile ad hoc network
and more

https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1119285580754575360

[Edit] Attributing the original source

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Apr 2019 10:20

Gurus from the slide please note Ferry range of LCA MK1A, and I dont see why MK 1 will much different in 2000KM, thats about ~45% of an F15C, a huge improvement over the Mig 21's and probably comparable to Gripen.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Apr 2019 11:01

^better than mirage 2000 which was around 1800km iirc on internal fuel. Of course they don't point out to the ferry range load out in the above slides. But I'm assuming it is on internal fuel only.

Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 20 Apr 2019 12:49

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Apr 2019 13:27

When is the first flight of MK1A?

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 20 Apr 2019 14:12

yensoy wrote:Malaysia and Singapore have their issues for sure, they have even threatened each other with Singapore saying that turning off water is tantamount to declaration of war; however their arming is not directed at each other. Singapore has conscription, and the Singaporeans (males, who have by requirement served in the military) say that their arming is basically against China. All countries infringed by the seven or nine or eleven dashed line are under Chinese threat and need minimal credible deterrence against misadventures. Singapore isn't, yet is a prime economic and ethnic target for subversion.

Malaysia and China are hugely integrated economically and through expats living in each others' countries, besides the fabric of ASEAN keeps things under check. It's very unlikely that they will go to war, or are even arming against each other.

Putting on my Dunce cap: I feel that there is a growing undercurrent which may lead to a partition of Malaysia wherein the non Islamic communities (read as Chinese and perhaps Indians) of Malaysia will migrate to form a Taiwan like Super Singapore which is self sufficient in Water and other resources. Leaving the rest of Malaysia to the Islam Pasand folks. Malay Chinese folks will no doubt find themselves more comfortable and increasingly prosperous in Singapore which is currently helmed by Ethnic Chinese administrators.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Apr 2019 14:15

wrong thread. take this discussion elsewhere.

Nishn · Post by **Nishn** » 20 Apr 2019 21:58

Has any one seen this clip from LIMA ? One of the few without any music but just the control surface checks and the sound of the F-404 rev -up before display.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Apr 2019 22:17

great find Nishn ! very nice video. I dont remember seeing a vid of Tejas from this aspect before.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Apr 2019 18:53

What we all suspected.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Unfortunate are those who aren't listening to Yugpurush Modi's BADMER, RAJASTHAN Bhaashan.

1.) Congi supported karnataka CM says hungry poor youth go to army. I was celebrating Deepawali in Himalayan with soldiers an aged Sainik Sardar ji with white beard came to me Breaking discipline and said "saheb I have a request , I am about to retire in few months, so please send me to the most hottest part of border, I dont want to retire just like this or send me to the most dangerous terrorist place, I want to do more before retiring...
Arrey Sainiks don't join for roti But to die for matrubhumi.... what's the aukaat of CM in front of them, what's the even Prime Minister in front of that? Nothing "

2. Tejas was kept in cold storage for many years deliberately by Congis, we revived its production, best rifle in the world will be produced in Desh. Bulletproof jackets were not given to army by congis, we are producing it and supplying to army.

PLEASE PLEASE LISTEN AND SPREAD.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 21 Apr 2019 23:57

Cain Marko wrote:^better than mirage 2000 which was around 1800km iirc on internal fuel. Of course they don't point out to the ferry range load out in the above slides. But I'm assuming it is on internal fuel only.

Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.

Ferry Range is always with maximum number of EFTs.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 22 Apr 2019 01:01

What is the current status of Mk1A? Is it just on HAL slides or any concrete progress has been made yet? As of today, the basic LCA itself may have the best BVR capability of all IAF fighters given it can field I-Derby ER vs R77 or Mica on all other platforms. Why is this capable fighter not being inducted in numbers?

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 22 Apr 2019 04:37

sudeepj wrote:
Haridas wrote: Only air is transparent to radar.
Styrofoam is reasonably good.
Composites reflect just because they dielectric constant is so high (even if their loss factor at L & X band is is perfect 0)
Haridas ji, I am only repeating what is conventional wisdom on the forum.. that carbon composites are transparent to radar and thats why tejas has such a low radar signature.. If this is not true, my whole life is a lie.

My last OT response to the question: unfortunately it's a lie. Only some (repeat some) reduction in rf reflection. Tejas program had bigger problems to overcome/slay, RF stealth was non-requirement. Lower RF RCS requirement would have killed the program (infeasible technically +lack of competence).

It's RCS is what it is, just optimizing all around performance focusing specially on its kinematics.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Apr 2019 14:04

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/

Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 22 Apr 2019 15:26

JayS wrote:http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/

Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.

Well written, once again!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 22 Apr 2019 15:45

tsarkar wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^better than mirage 2000 which was around 1800km iirc on internal fuel. Of course they don't point out to the ferry range load out in the above slides. But I'm assuming it is on internal fuel only.

Note mk1a could have better range than mk1 if they manage to bring down it's weight as proposed.
Ferry Range is always with maximum number of EFTs.

Hmm, very tactful statement! MK1 has 5 wet-points but I've never seen more than 3 EFTs at a time.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 22 Apr 2019 15:56

Lower RCS was indeed on the table initially, but got removed pretty fast. So did supercruise.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2019 15:59

I wonder how RCS changes from Mk1 to Mk2 given Mk2 is bigger and has canards.

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 22 Apr 2019 16:06

Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!

Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!

If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!

raghuk · Post by **raghuk** » 22 Apr 2019 16:18

ShivS wrote:Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!

Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!

If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!

What is 3rd gen payload and endurance? I'm asking Seriously as I'm not aware of any generation specific range and endurance. And what according to you is the ideal price of a so called 4.5 gen aircraft?
P.S I do not believe in all this generation nomenclature and if at all we go that route, the Tejas would be a 2nd generation aircraft for India. And for a second generation fighter it is a mighty big achievement.
Cheers!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Apr 2019 16:19

Nope, Tejas IA gives us potent capabilities, yes its lacks endurance, but for building domestic industry it is definitely worth it, developing local supplier and Indian Technological base, a few thousand crores of bargaining and keeping the IAF without aircraft or imported aircraft. Hell even the difference if we are importing can be bridged from the Direct and Indirect taxes which will be levied on various organisations and personal in manufacturing the Tejas plus depreciation of Rupees over time.

I Say go ahead with MK 1A, prices have shot up a lot since the MK 1 orders were placed.

What is being said it is better to eat outside food and be sick that equipping a Kicthen with Gas, stoves etc and be healthy with home cooked food.

gaurav.p · Post by **gaurav.p** » 22 Apr 2019 16:33

JayS wrote:http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/

Updated second part. We added a few interesting points on LCA wing design. Do read to know why Tejas has lower sweep on inboard section or why the inboard section looks like it has anhedral (but it doesn't). We have had discussed these mysteries endlessly here, but now we know factual reasons from the Designers themselves.

Slight typo in the preceding para from Figure11. "as the elevens act as flaps".
Great to see new renderings, esp the frontal and rear profile.

srin · Post by **srin** » 22 Apr 2019 17:02

ShivS wrote:Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!

Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!

If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!

Costing can be complicated. I don't know, but I'd like to be educated on the factors involved in the above quoted cost (same applies to above mentioned "acceptable" figure of Rs. 325/350 Cr):
- Does it include development cost amortized ? (and ordering more is going bring it down or maybe Govt can separate R&D cost from prdn cost)
- Is it flyaway cost ? Or does it include cost of missiles - ASRAAM etc
- Does it have PBL (performance based logistics) in it - so more spares are stocked up for performance guarantee ?

IIRC, the Mirage *upgrade* was around $50m per plane. Comparatively, the Mk1A with AESA and other bells and whistles looks pretty okay.

I think IAF, HAL and MoD are discussing these, so they would have the full information that I lack.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2019 17:30

Cost is irrelevant and important only insofar as accounting is concerned. It should not be a concern for ordering the requisite number of aircraft needed.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Apr 2019 18:17

Prasad wrote:I wonder how RCS changes from Mk1 to Mk2 given Mk2 is bigger and has canards.

RCS is a function of shape and not size. (If you see theoretical calculations, an object of same external shape where as little as a small jet or as big as a ship would have same RCS..!! Canards need not mean increase in RCS always.

Now that you mention it, Canards on MK2 have slight dihedral angle. I wonder if that would help in negating any possible impact of canards on frontal RCS.

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 22 Apr 2019 20:03

Cool! HAL has a fan following here..

Will just put down some facts and benchmarks

1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.

2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.

3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.

4. When does Make in India become Save HAL

5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.

6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!

No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2019 21:29

JayS wrote:
Prasad wrote:I wonder how RCS changes from Mk1 to Mk2 given Mk2 is bigger and has canards.
RCS is a function of shape and not size. (If you see theoretical calculations, an object of same external shape where as little as a small jet or as big as a ship would have same RCS..!! Canards need not mean increase in RCS always.

Now that you mention it, Canards on MK2 have slight dihedral angle. I wonder if that would help in negating any possible impact of canards on frontal RCS.

Interesting. I assumed greater surface area to reflect -> higher RCS. Anyway, there will be some features of the mk2 design that will reduce RCS. Just wondering if the increased size & canards will negate that. Tail Fin is higher up too. Even if they cancel out, Mk2 then will not have an RCS penalty.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 22 Apr 2019 21:51

ShivS wrote:Cool! HAL has a fan following here..

Will just put down some facts and benchmarks

1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.

2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.

...
No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post

Can you post some sources for your price quotes?
Also, cut down on the snark. It doesnt lead to good discussions.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Apr 2019 22:02

A ) there are things like inflation and B)Gripen C doesnt have stuff like AESA. So its apple to Oranges comparision. And is about setting up an aircraft manufacturing sub contractors within India. Right now thanks HAL produced LCA is all we got so lets ramp up numbers.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 22 Apr 2019 22:55

JayS wrote:http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/02/2 ... t-fighter/

JayS and Indranil ji
Need your opinion on the following :-
1. Don't the Canards reduce the overall visibility ? Additionally IMHO the enlarged fuselage behind the canopy also contribute s to the reduced rear ward visibility. Refer picture below.

2. Accessing the 2nd seat in a twin seater MK2/trainer will be tricky with those canards. Gripen barely manages with a complex ladder with a flat platform, but in Gripen the Canards are lower and hence better placed.

A small request: Kindly add Gripen A/B in Table 1 of your article. This adds to the perspective how MK1 progressed to MK2 w.r.t Gripen A/B to E version

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Apr 2019 23:23

ShivS wrote:Cool! HAL has a fan following here..

Will just put down some facts and benchmarks

1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.

Please provide details of how you are sure the base cost does not include the amortization of the build cost i.e. additional infra required specifically for the Mk1A and other changes required.

2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.

Irrelevant numbers, since the LCA money is mostly spent in India given over 60% of its LRUs are locally sourced as well as the design and development plus manufacture of the platform itself in India.

3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.

Again, a ridiculous compare, because these aircraft won't come "65 to 70mm a pop" but will also need extensive investment in additional infrastructure and equipment to build them in India, and sustain them in IAF service, and will contribute little to actual know why in the Indian context, as it will be around built to print, and close monitoring of technology via ITAR for instance.
Next, comparing a light fighter to a medium weight fighter is an exercise full of the worst kind of analytical mumbo-jumbo.
The Gripen E as it exists is still a paper project for us, and comes with all the disadvantages of the F-16 (multiple LRU suppliers with restrictive technology sharing agreements) and few of the benefits (combat proven systems for instance).

4. When does Make in India become Save HAL

An irrelevant aside, because Make in India one is best served by Indian designed and developed systems and platforms, not assembled in India screwdriver projects, which is what the MMRCA will be, if even HAL is not involved.

5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.

I am not sure if you even have an idea of what you are talking about. The imports leverage the infrastructure built up over thousand plus Flanker builds across worldwide and Russian orders. To build up the same in India obviously means we have to spend more, and HAL has to spread out the cost over its airframes. In return we get the capability to sustain our fleets with a high proportion of components and systems built locally and the agreement with IAPO now Sukhoi clearly stipulates, that while for actual airframes we have to depend on Russia for raw materials to machine into subcomponents, these restrictions ease up for making spares & sustaining the airframes. In short, India has invested up front on an artificially high cost basis to sustain its Sukhois for a much larger period of time, gradually reducing its dependence on the Russian suppliers.

6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!

Again, this is an assumption you are making. The MMRCA order size as it stands is around 110-114 airframes. There is no guarantee that more airframe orders will be placed on top of this, or even that the Navy's 57 airframe order will be added to this.

No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post

Couldn't care less, but stay off the sarcasm and be a bit more serious with your posts. That will be appreciated. People here have literally spent over a decade discussing these issues and getting into the details at a level which you are clearly unaware about. They won't appreciate some "witticisms" based on costing assumptions, that too so basic & which completely ignore the larger impact of the Tejas on the Indian aerospace industrial ecosystem or its unique attributes in terms of customization to Indian warfighting needs without having to run to the OEM for every tiny thing.
Also, we have members from HAL as members of this board, and they too won't appreciate trolling.
Reasoned critiques are one thing, but merely mocking HAL without merit is not appreciated or condoned.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 22 Apr 2019 23:28

ShivS wrote:Cool! HAL has a fan following here..

Will just put down some facts and benchmarks

1. The price of RS.463 Cr is a base flyaway cost, no weapons, no training infra, no amortisation of development cost. Development cost has been funded by MoD up to MK1 directly. Not sure if it came from IAF budget or from DRDO budget.

2. FA 50, JF17, Gripen C which have similar payloads, speed, endurance with GE404 engines are around USD25 to 40 million each with no weaponry and no training and infra. The JF17 has serious radar and avionics upgrade needs, so may not be a great comparison. The air show which was a precursor to a light combat aircraft buy, in Malaysia last quarter saw numbers of USD 25-35 mm.

3. At USD 65 to 70 mm a pop, you are close to clean costs for F16/Block 60, Gripen E etc. These aircraft have better payload and endurance (nearly 40 to 50%) and better performance.

4. When does Make in India become Save HAL

5. IAF has been thru this once before - the 222 Su 30MKIs built in HAL cost nearly Rs 20,000 Cr extra as compared to imports.What capability did we build for that extra spend? It could have funded a doubling of the AWAC and tanker fleets, perhaps even more.

6. We will order, 250 non stealthy aircraft c between the IAF and the IN in the next decade - for an order that size you would be shocked how costs drop for the F16s, F18s and even Rafales as it’s going to be the last large non stealthy order to emerge!

No one from HAL was harmed in the making of this post

What you are saying is wrong - its not the base cost - its the cost for developing the entire ecosystem

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Apr 2019 23:29

ShivS wrote:Is the Mk1A worth it at a quoted price of nearly Rs485 Cr? It’s a combination of 4.5 gen avionics, radar, EW and communications with a 3rd generation payload and endurance!

I am not sure if you even have the slightest idea of what you are talking of. The LCA Mk1A is built as a product improvement of the Mk1, which was designed with a clear mandate, to fit into the MiG-21 form factor, so as to use the existing base infrastructure and also provide capabilities which were equal to those on then IAF 4th gen fighters such as the MiG-29 (i.e. payload, pylon count, etc). With IFR, even the ostensibly limited range (equivalent to our non upgraded MiG-29s) is addressed. For the full 4.5 Gen platform compare, now you have the MWF program.

Unless HAL figures out a way to drop the cost to around Rs.325/350 Cr doubt the IAF will bite, and they should not!

If the IAF expects any forward movement on the AMCA and a long term commitment from Indian suppliers for its plans, it will have to pay. Limited builds are expensive, 83 airframes are not mass production.

If the MK1 costa around Rs.240/250 Cr, the improvements requested should not add more than Rs75/100 Cr to the cost. Make in India is important but this verges on the ridiculous!

Your post, is getting quite over the top. Less rhetoric.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2019 23:38

Not to mention the fact that HAL facilities also help provide support to Malaysian MKMs and offer a way to do some foreign policy work too.