nirav wrote: There were slippages in MKI production. IAF didn't stop the line nor the orders.
Actually, the scenario I quoted earlier to you applies very well to the Su-30MKI production.
Slippages in case of Su-30MKI were made up by ordering more aircraft from Russian in CKD condition or in a state where maximum work had been done by the Russians. This allowed HAL to manage a part of slippage. Though, what this also meant that percentage of a/c to be imported with high Russian involvement was much higher that what was planned. Because HAL could not manage production rate at its end. It also meant that more money was spent than was envisaged because a higher outflow went to Russians.
This is as good as having a parallel production line. Albeit where the price/product is higher. But when push comes to shove, the numbers can be met.
No such comfort level with HAL only producing LCA.
As far as the LCA is concerned, IAFs treatment of the program has been nothing but filled with bias. I'm not aware of IAF insistence on IOC/FOC of any other jet in its inventory as it has done for the LCA.
I know IAF's 'lack of involvement' in LCA Program is a favorite whipping tool but pray, do tell me how does that address the issue of HAL's track overall record? And one especially with LCA? I hope you're not implying that since IAF has had 'hands-off' attitude earlier with LCA, it cannot demand accountability from HAL? Though, even by most accounts, IAF has been completely on-board since 2007.
As to IOC and FOC of other aircraft - this is another favorite whipping tool. But one that is bereft of logic and reasoning.
For one - IOC and FOC would apply to underdevelopment aircraft. It would've surely applied to Mirage-2000, Mig-29 or Su-30. But in their respective countries when these were under-development. What IAF inducted were fully certified aircraft.
Now, inducting Mirage-2000 with missile component is not same as inducting Mirage-2000 without 'missile firing' capability. We got missile separately; missile firing 'capability' came with the aircraft.
Also, when the first 20 order was placed, the LCA in its IOC config was good enough for point defense and theater precision strike.
Now, the above is a classic case of putting cart before the horse.
On the one hand, you cry murder when IAF Chief calls LCA a Mig-21++ and on another, you're making an argument for inducting LCA as a point defense fighter? A point defense fighter which comes without gun firing capability? Never mind that the main point defense fighter in IAF's inventory, Mig-21 Bison, itself has capability of firing the BVR missile.
The bakis ordered the bandars in the 100s with lesser capability, whereas Hon. ACM wants proof that BVR works and that it can refuel aerially for IAF to "accept" the LCA.
Pakees can do anything because the armed forces control every facet of defense sector. HAL counterpart in Pakistan would dare not do even 1% of antics it does in India or there would be literally hell to pay.
IAF Chief is only asking for what was promised and agreed. And like any operator, he will ask for proof whether it works or not. Because he has a small problem of defending the country's sky to address.
All this chest-beating about IOC and FOC came about because FOC has been getting delayed.