There is a semi-philosophical question that asks "When is a fighter really ready for operational flying?"
I don't know the real answer to this question but I guess a safe answer would be "
A fighter is ready for operational flying when it is capable of performing the roles envisaged for it in an air force which inducts the fighter, is reliable, and is available in adequate numbers and is fully serviceable when required"
Clearly this is a broad general definition where specifics are left vague. But using the above broad definition I am tempted to think that Air Forces of the world induct aircraft only when they reach that stage as per the definition above. But hey presto, when I look back at the history of military aviation, this is what I find, from WiKi and I post that at the bottom. If you read the list you find that the richest and most powerful country on earth has a record of inducting fighters long before they were really ready. Many were plain unsafe. I am sure the US could have turned to Britain or France for imports. But they did not.
I post his in the context of when the LCA will be declared as ready, but I do feel a separate thread on the evolution of military aviation along with industrial development may be a good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_ ... Phantom_II
In air combat, the Phantom's greatest advantage was its thrust, which permitted
a skilled pilot to engage and disengage from the fight at will.[37] The massive
aircraft, designed to fire radar-guided missiles from beyond visual range,
lacked the agility of its Soviet opponents and was subject to adverse yaw during
hard maneuvering. Although thus subject to irrecoverable spins during aileron
rolls, pilots reported the aircraft to be very communicative and easy to fly on
the edge of its performance envelope. In 1972, the F-4E model was upgraded with
leading edge slats on the wing, greatly improving high angle of attack
maneuverability at the expense of top speed.[38]
The J79 engines produced noticeable amounts of black smoke, a severe
disadvantage in that the enemy could spot the aircraft.[39] This was solved on
the F-4S fitted with the −10A engine variant which used a smoke-free
combustor.[40]
The F-4's biggest weakness, as it was initially designed, was its lack of an
internal cannon. For a brief period, doctrine held that turning combat would be
impossible at supersonic speeds and little effort was made to teach pilots air
combat maneuvering. In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic.
Furthermore, the relatively new heat-seeking and radar-guided missiles at the
time were frequently reported as unreliable and pilots had to use multiple shots
(also known as ripple-firing), just to hit one enemy fighter. To compound the
problem, rules of engagement in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks in
most instances, as visual identification was normally required. Many pilots
found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft but too close to fire
short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. Although in 1967 USAF F-4Cs began carrying
SUU-16 external gunpods containing a 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan Gatling cannon,
USAF cockpits were not equipped with lead-computing gunsights,until the
introduction of the SUU-23, virtually assuring a miss in a maneuvering fight.
Some Marine Corps aircraft carried two pods for strafing. In addition to the
loss of performance due to drag, combat showed the externally mounted cannon to
be inaccurate unless frequently boresighted, yet far more cost-effective than
missiles. The lack of a cannon was finally addressed by adding an internally
mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan on the F-4E.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader
The Crusader was not an easy aircraft to fly, and was often unforgiving in
carrier landings where it suffered from yaw instability, and the
poorly-designed, castered nose wheel made steering on the deck problematic. It
earned a reputation as an "ensign killer" during its early service
introduction.[9] The nozzle and air intake were so low when the aircraft was on
the ground or the flight deck that the crews called the plane "the Gator." Not
surprisingly, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared to its
contemporaries, the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and the F-4 Phantom II. However, the
aircraft did possess some amazing capabilities, as proved when several Crusader
pilots took off with the wings folded. One of these episodes took place on 23
August 1960; a Crusader with the wings folded took off from Napoli Capodichino
in full afterburner, climbed to 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and then returned to land
successfully. The pilot, absent minded but evidently a good "stick man,"
complained that the control forces were higher than normal. The Crusader was
capable of flying in this state, though the pilot would be required to reduce
aircraft weight by ejecting stores and fuel prior to landing.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... uper_Sabre
The F-100A officially entered USAF service on 27 September 1954 with 479th
Fighter Wing at George AFB, CA. By 10 November 1954, the F-100As suffered six
major accidents due to flight instability, structural failures, and hydraulic
system failures, prompting the Air Force to ground the entire fleet until
February 1955. The 479th finally became operational in September 1955. Due to
ongoing problems, the Air Force began phasing out the F-100A in 1958, with the
last aircraft leaving active duty in 1961. By that time, 47 aircraft were lost
in major accidents.[2] Escalating tension due to construction of the Berlin Wall
in August 1961 forced the USAF to recall the F-100As into active service in
early 1962. The aircraft was finally retired in 1970.
By the time the F-105 mock-up had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft
had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it, was abandoned
in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75. Anticipating a protracted
development of the engine, it was expected that the first aircraft would use the
smaller Pratt & Whitney J57. Near the end of 1953, the entire program was
canceled by the USAF due to a number of delays and uncertainties regarding the
aircraft, however on 28 June 1954, the USAF officially ordered 15 F-105s (two
YF-105As, four YF-105Bs, six F-105Bs and three RF-105Bs) under the Weapon System
designation WS-306A.[5][9][10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105_Thunderchief
By the time the F-105 mock-up had been completed in October 1953, the aircraft
had grown so large that the Allison J71 turbojet intended for it, was abandoned
in favor of an even more powerful Pratt & Whitney J75. Anticipating a protracted
development of the engine, it was expected that the first aircraft would use the
smaller Pratt & Whitney J57. Near the end of 1953, the entire program was
canceled by the USAF due to a number of delays and uncertainties regarding the
aircraft, however on 28 June 1954, the USAF officially ordered 15 F-105s (two
YF-105As, four YF-105Bs, six F-105Bs and three RF-105Bs) under the Weapon System
designation WS-306A.[5][9][10]
The YF-105A prototype first flew on 22 October 1955, with the second YF-105A
following on 28 January 1956.[9] In spite of being powered by a less potent
J57-P-25 engine with 15,000 pounds-force (67 kN) of afterburning thrust (the J75
was expected to generate 24,500 lbf (109 kN) with afterburner), the first
prototype attained the speed of Mach 1.2 on its maiden flight.[11] Both
prototypes featured conventional wing root air intakes and slab-sided fuselages
typical of the early jets; Republic viewed the YB-105As as not being
representative of the true capability of the aircraft due to numerous changes
prior to production.[12] Insufficient power and aerodynamic problems with
transonic drag, as well as Convair's experience with their F-102, had led to a
redesign of the fuselage in order to conform to the Area rule, giving it a
characteristic "wasp waist".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dy ... 1_Aardvark
Lacking experience with carrier-based fighters, General Dynamics teamed with
Grumman for assembly and test of the F-111B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would
also build the F-111A's aft fuselage and the landing gear.[20] The General
Dynamics and Grumman team faced ambitious requirements for range, weapons load,
and aircraft weight.[21] The F-111 design also included new features on a
production military aircraft, such as variable-geometry wings and afterburning
turbofan engines.[20]
The F-111A mock-up was inspected in September 1963. The first test F-111A was
rolled out of the General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas plant on 15 October 1964.
It was powered by YTF30-P-1 turbofans and used a set of ejector seats as the
escape capsule was not yet available.[18] The F-111A first flew on 21 December
1964 from Carswell AFB, Texas.[22] The first F-111B was also equipped with
ejector seats and first flew on 18 May 1965.[23][24]
To address stall issues in certain parts of the flight regime, the engine inlet
design was modified in 1965-66, ending with the "Triple Plow I" and "Triple Plow
II" designs.[25] The F-111A achieved a speed of Mach 1.3 in February 1965 with
an interim intake design.[18][25] Cracks in the F-111's wing attach points were
first discovered in 1968 during ground fatigue testing, and an F-111 was crashed
the following year due to the issue. The attach structure required redesign and
testing to ensure adequate design and workmanship.[26] Flight testing of the
F-111A ran through 1973.[27]
The F-111B was canceled by the Navy in 1968 due to weight and performance
issues, along with the need for additional fighter requirements.
