LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2015 01:49

Nilesh,

That is very likely the case. They had to draw the "good-enough" line somewhere. Otherwise, they would have never finished the project.

Besides, I also find it really funny that we all say we are beginners in aero-related stuff, but start lecturing ADA guys at the drop of the hat! And that is also the reason why I find this 1000 kg reduction quite difficult to accept! This would mean that both ADA and SAAB are full of people who design planes whose empty weight can be optimized by over 15%! Funny part is that HAL has designed and built the landing gear for LCA. If this was so easy to optimize the LG, what is it doing so far!!!!

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Sep 2015 01:56

Bhaskar_T wrote:I came to BRF to overjoy myself with at least 20 Lungi Dances in this dhaaga - disappointed to find only one 'Balle Balle'. Why so much misery? Isn't this make in India? Earlier, we wanted more Tejas MK1's and now when 7 squadrons of Tejas MK1A have been ordered, not many seem to be happy.

Disappointed that Abdul's are not happy, am wondering is that the news of 7 squadrons of Tejas MK1A is so good to be true that no one believes OR jingoes are equally unhappy that the Tejas MK1A is going to be another new story to be developed in 5 years or so.

If Tejas MK1A won't be ready, by the time HAL has delivered 40 Tejas MK1 (say by 2020), may be IAF+HAL+MOD won't mind allowing few (say 1 or 2) Tejas MK1A squadron orders to be converted to Tejas MK1. Weren't we concerned about that production line will get idle because of such scarce orders (40)?

PS - Was going to have a celebration drink (Chivas) after 2 months, seems today is not the day. Full confused.

At this point it's talk. Only one news article reporting this. Let's see if this is formalized.

Second issue is the same as you have mentioned. I'm not sure if there is enough time to R&D changes, flight tests and make it ready for production before 40 Mk.1 are delivered (16/year capacity by 2019). We have known HAL/DRDO, in the past, to be too optimistic in their timelines. So until proven otherwise, it would be wise to remain joyful but cautious not to be overjoyed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 02:09

Cain Marko wrote:Karan, is that an ifr probe my tired eyes are seeing in the first plane to the left? That would mean these are foc std...if true, Great news...definitely lungi dance moment...far more than mkl.a news...

TBH pic is too low rez to make that out. I doubt they'd have IFR probes at this stage.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2015 05:34

Cain Marko wrote:Karan, is that an ifr probe my tired eyes are seeing in the first plane to the left? That would mean these are foc std...if true, Great news...definitely lungi dance moment...far more than mkl.a news...

I have a photo of an LCA mock-up from late 1990s that shows IFR on R side fuselage below and in front of cockpit. This is not IFR as far as I can tell. I think that would involve a whole different series of tests apart from weight penalty and would delay things further. The IFR can rest for a bit I think

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 30 Sep 2015 06:07

This one? http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 1.jpg.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2015 06:10

Mihir wrote:This one? http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... 1.jpg.html

Similar - but the one I snapped was a definite mock-up at Aero India. This one looks suspiciously unmockuplike - but it is an old image, I'm guessing?

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 30 Sep 2015 06:19

It's more recent; circa 2011. Maybe this is the one you were referring to -- a TD with a probe.

Also, Karan, Cain, I though the IFR probe was a requirement for FOC?

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48651.html

However FOC for the Tejas Mk-I is now expected to be achieved only by late 2015. This, according to Dr K. Tamilmani, Director General (Aero),DRDO, is chiefly on account of delays in receiving two significant parts from an overseas vendor that will need to be certified for FOC acceptance. These are of course a bolt on inflight refuelling (IFR) probe and a new quartz nose cone radome, both of which are being procured from different divisions of UK's Cobham

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 30 Sep 2015 07:05

Great news, now waiting for Arjun order.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Sep 2015 07:11

Yes, I was under the impression that ifr was an foc requirement too...wonder if they will attempt a fulcrum style retractable one

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2015 08:21

It is not a IFR probe. Too small to be one.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2015 10:01

Is the 7 squadron of Mk1A in addition to the 2 mk1 squadron. Or inclusive of the 2 squadrons.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 30 Sep 2015 10:46

7 sq LCA mk1 A in 2019-24 timeframe after production of 40 nos (2sq) LCA MK1 is over by 2019 means doubling of production to 32 LCA/year.

25 year back data from a engineering journal landing gear weight is 4% of MTOW of modern fighter. So I think Airframe weight also have to be reduced for a 700kg weight saving.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Sep 2015 11:31

indranilroy wrote:It is not a IFR probe. Too small to be one.

If you guys are referring to the small protruding thinggy with red ribble to it on the left side of the cockpit, thats the pitot tube. LCA has 2 or 3 of them.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Sep 2015 11:47

indranilroy wrote:Nilesh,

That is very likely the case. They had to draw the "good-enough" line somewhere. Otherwise, they would have never finished the project.

Besides, I also find it really funny that we all say we are beginners in aero-related stuff, but start lecturing ADA guys at the drop of the hat! And that is also the reason why I find this 1000 kg reduction quite difficult to accept! This would mean that both ADA and SAAB are full of people who design planes whose empty weight can be optimized by over 15%! Funny part is that HAL has designed and built the landing gear for LCA. If this was so easy to optimize the LG, what is it doing so far!!!!

I had the same feeling about 1000kg weight reduction. I don't think anyone can make any aircraft in 5.5 ton weight with so much stuff packed in it by today's standard, use of composites notwithstanding. You cant throw the 200 odd kilograms of ballast just like that with out having something to replace it with same weight and volume so as not to change CG settings (which will require tweaking in FCS and some flight testing). You can't shed too much from LG, may be 100-200kg at max assuming it was built over-conservatively. Co-cured co-bonded all composite frame might shade may be 200kg or so but thats too much efforts to be involved and could be done only in MK2. I can't think of where they will remove that 1000kgs. Why HAL claims they can, and what will happen when they can't do it at the end of the day?? We will have the accusation of over-promising and under-delivering for ADA/HAL.

It will be a big big deal if they actually can make LCA that lean. It will kick asses of any fighter available worldwide with the kind of performance it will have even in MK1A config.

One more question in my mind is, now with carry over of these changes to MK2 will ADA have to revisit MK2 design delaying it even further?? I can't decide whether I should be happy or sad to see MK1A. I would rather have put all these changes in MK2 double quick and roll it out as soon as possible in full avatar rather than doing this big config change at 11th hour.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 14:41

My theory is ADA explored weight reduction. One of those was landing gear + ballast. HAL was privy to those discussions with its teams + EADS for the landing gear. Also there were discussions earlier about Elta 2052 which went nowhere (Unkil put pressure on Israel not to give us AESA per reports since it would impact the attractiveness of their MMRCA). HAL was part of these discussions too. This is what led the DRDO/ADA to develop our own AESA radar as IAF/ADA were understandably upset about how tech denials could take place.

ADA decided after taking a look at all the above to take a different path. All up changes to the airframe (drag reduction), LRU packing (maintability), weight reduction (ballast) and also address indigenization (local radar etc) plus newer tech (new FBW computer, sensor fusion, cockpit etc). And new engine with some extra fuel to take care of the slightly higher fuel burn in most cruise conditions.

HAL has decided that the weight reduction itself is sufficient, Israel can provide the avionics improvements double quick & seems in part, driven by the need to ensure its investment in the production line does not lie idle. Forget about radar indigenization etc - HAL's track record there is dodgy. Most programs, HAL is in favor of tying with a vendor abroad and doing the system integration.

The issue is now one of whether its feasible. If this is the plan adopted, ADA HAS TO BE brought on board. HAL does NOT have the wherewithal to achieve Mk1A on its own at all. This will require new digital drawings for the entire aircraft (ADA control), FBW mods (ADE, NAL, ADA control).
MOD has to take leadership here and ensure its done to spec.

The FBW part alone is the biggest concern, plus the wastage of effort in having done the Mk2. First is a challenge.

On a plus side, we can ensure the LCA AF Mk2 is a proper redesign end to end and becomes a Medium class aircraft rather than an iterative improvement alone. Lengthen the fuselage by a meter +, modify the wings, structure for greater load and pylon configurations. Carry a heavier duty radar, IRST combo.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Sep 2015 15:39

I don't see HAL shaving off 1000kg from LCA. If it was that easy then why did HAL forget to make this suggestion ten year ago? Are ADA chaps and all their foreign consultants morons? Was HAL as the manufacturer of LCA sleeping for last 25 years? Or it can be a DDM mistake wherein they meant that out of 1000kg overweight HAL can shave off 200kg.

Anyway, I think we should give HAL LCA Mark-1 and Mark-1A orders say around 120-180 aircrafts and a Pvt sector company Mark-2 orders with another 120-180 aircraft order. Both HAL and Pvt company can compete for potential LCA mark-3 with winner taking 60% and loser taking 40% production.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 15:50

We all know that LCA program was/is severely affected by fact that ADA has notional powers but little authority viz getting production agency to do its job. Also that initial D&D took time because of inexperience. Both issues were precipitated by first ADA head SR Valluri who was leading the fight for more control, was pushed out by Dr Arunachalam (DRDO head) after he was upset at him for not retaining Dr Raj Mahindra (HALs most experienced designer) as the head. So this entire mess was created because one gent in parliament created a ruckus that Raj Mahindra had a british wife, and was hence suspect. The ruckus lead Arunachalam to get cold feet and ask Valluri to ease Mahindra out, which then lead to Valluri also leaving. All events which harmed the program.

Guess who was the gent who created the parliament issue?

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 48124.html
More interesting stuff.
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kalmadi- ... tee-469414

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2015 16:07

It could be 1000lbs. Ddm translating that to 1000kg.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Sep 2015 16:16

Alert - Mango man post - It is quite possible ADA in their fear of a crash etc during testing might have delibarately over engineered or it is also possible that ADA has now more confidant and experianced to examine the matter afresh and see if it can achieve wight reduction etc.

One more thing PSUs jump to the music of their political masters. NM and MP are pressing for MII and almost every top boss in PSUs will be hard pressed show that they can do something for MII idea. HAL and bosses may be doing just that.

Mango question - It is comparatively easy to put GE 414 engine with required moditications to airflow etc than shaving 1000 kg from the Mk1?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 16:22

Pratyush wrote:It could be 1000lbs. Ddm translating that to 1000kg.

In India, do we use Lbs as a common measure?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 30 Sep 2015 17:20

Karan M wrote:......

On a plus side, we can ensure the LCA AF Mk2 is a proper redesign end to end and becomes a Medium class aircraft rather than an iterative improvement alone. Lengthen the fuselage by a meter +, modify the wings, structure for greater load and pylon configurations. Carry a heavier duty radar, IRST combo.

to the bolded IIRC Kartik's post @aero 2015 noted -

-No IRST requirement from the IAF or IN as yet. ADA guy said that they won’t propose new equipment if the user doesn’t have a requirement for it.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1803673

OTOH, i am skeptical about this report. hope it turns out correct!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2015 18:29

there is no way in hell they can shave 1000kg at this FOC stage from a 6500kg airframe. it has never been done.
this kind of BS claims is what gives DRDO/HAL a reputation as horn blowers.

ballast indicates a optimal weight placement of things in the airframe was not achieved .. perhaps it is inevitable in some a/c - you need to put LRUs for instance where they can be accessed, some things have to be in certain places....if they remove ballast it might mean relocation, movement of cg, fresh fbw changes, redesign of electronics, qualifying them...

the only thing I can see being feasible is optimizing the landing gear which might shave some 100kg . EF who were brought in for naval tejas might be able to help.

also AESA radars are usually heavier than pulse doppler types.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Sep 2015 18:32

An airframe is roughly 1/3rd of aircraft weight. So I don't see HAL shaving off 30-40% from the airframe weight. The only possible thing is LCA Mark-1 with AESA, with NO weight saving, can be called LCA Mark1-A.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 18:40

pragnya wrote:
Karan M wrote:......

On a plus side, we can ensure the LCA AF Mk2 is a proper redesign end to end and becomes a Medium class aircraft rather than an iterative improvement alone. Lengthen the fuselage by a meter +, modify the wings, structure for greater load and pylon configurations. Carry a heavier duty radar, IRST combo.
to the bolded IIRC Kartik's post @aero 2015 noted -

-No IRST requirement from the IAF or IN as yet. ADA guy said that they won’t propose new equipment if the user doesn’t have a requirement for it.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1803673

OTOH, i am skeptical about this report. hope it turns out correct!!

yes, no requirement yet.. the yet part scares me...since IAF is busy using IRST in Su-30s, it was apparently part of MMRCA and if we will extend the Mk2 out.. the IAF may well ask for it. pre-empt that late addition and plan for it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 18:48

Singha wrote:there is no way in hell they can shave 1000kg at this FOC stage from a 6500kg airframe. it has never been done.
this kind of BS claims is what gives DRDO/HAL a reputation as horn blowers.

At this point HAL claims only.. yet to see ADAs public views on the matter..and originally it was said:
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _Radar.htm

The new LCA-MkI-P variant with the EW Package will also add some 50 kilos of more weight, but then, Mr Raju explained, the capability of the aircraft increases significantly, offsetting the disadvantage of a smaller engine.

The current LCA-MkI version uses 210 kilos with ballast in the nose to stabilize the aircraft. This will be removed, and the AESA and EW suite weighing about 250 kilos will be added. The net weight gain will be of about 50 kilos.

But then Shukla jumped into the breach

The Mark 1-A would be faster and more agile than the current Mark I. Developing it would involve shaving off 800 kilogrammes from the current fighter, especially from systems like the landing gear, which are currently "over-engineered", or built heavy, for safety. HAL also proposes to remove 300 kg of dead weight distributed across the Mark I to balance it evenly.

But ADA and IAF went wut???

The IAF and ADA are taken aback by HAL's reluctance to participate in developing the Mark II. Even though the Tejas project is managed by ADA --- a branch of the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) --- HAL has developed important components. Besides many smaller systems, HAL designed the Tejas structure, its undercarriage and electrical supply system. It would have to upgrade these for the Mark II.

"We have completed the preliminary design of the Tejas Mark II, but now the detailed design will be done. HAL would have to refine and upgrade the systems it developed for the Tejas", points out a senior ADA official.

HAL's withdrawal stems from its deep-rooted concern over the Tejas assembly line, which was established at a cost of Rs 1,556 crore, with HAL paying half and the remaining shared between the IAF and navy. Keeping the line running is essential, so that skilled manpower does not have to be redistributed; and a steady flow of orders can be placed on sub-vendors.

HAL sees a four-year gap between the last Tejas Mark I and the first Tejas Mark II as seriously disruptive. Building 80 Tejas Mark I-A is a way of bridging that gap.

However, the IAF and ADA point to HAL's poor record of adhering to manufacturing schedules. They say HAL, which is more than a year late in building the Tejas Mark I, is unlikely to build and deliver 40 Tejas Mark I by 2019. So far, the Tejas line has built just one fighter.

So all up in the air onlee..

I suspect HAL will now be asked to submit a detailed project proposal for vetting by the IAF/ADA about how exactly this weight reduction will be achieved before this plan is cleared.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 30 Sep 2015 18:50

Karan M wrote: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 48124.html

This link contains artists impression of two LCA configs. THe one w/o canard looks awful lot like F16XL. Thanks for the link Karan.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 30 Sep 2015 19:09

If they pull off the 1000 kg reduction then even with the current engine the LCA will be a real kick-ass aircraft. Going OT I am sure one day the spirit of Col John Boyd will smile at the Tejas from Heaven above and say "that's the fighter I always wanted".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2015 20:01

I think it was Cdre Balaji at Aero India who pointed out that when the landing gear has been made heavier and stronger than necessary - the airframe to which that landing gear is attached is also heavier and stronger than necessary and that combined extra weight translated to other structures made thicker/heavier than necessary because G force stresses are higher. Every one of these structures can be made lighter. I can't recall where I got the figure from - maybe my own musharraf, but a weight reduction of 200 kg may be possible from landing gear and associated structures. Ballast if I recall was 300 kg. Those two would add up to half a ton. Maybe 1000 kg is doable - I don't know but like the doctor who I have trust to set my piles straight I expect that the people who say these things know more than I do - assuming the reporter is not himself farting.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Sep 2015 20:12

shiv wrote:I think it was Cdre Balaji at Aero India who pointed out that when the landing gear has been made heavier and stronger than necessary - the airframe to which that landing gear is attached is also heavier and stronger than necessary and that combined extra weight translated to other structures made thicker/heavier than necessary because G force stresses are higher. Every one of these structures can be made lighter. I can't recall where I got the figure from - maybe my own musharraf, but a weight reduction of 200 kg may be possible from landing gear and associated structures. Ballast if I recall was 300 kg. Those two would add up to half a ton. Maybe 1000 kg is doable - I don't know but like the doctor who I have trust to set my piles straight I expect that the people who say these things know more than I do - assuming the reporter is not himself farting.

200 on the gear, 200 on the ballast and some tweaking on the structures could give around 450-500 KGs.
It could very well have been a 1000 pounds that were quoted for weight reduction ..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2015 20:16

P Bhat. I agree with your comment.

So Kalmadi has consistently sabotaged LCA from the beginning in 1985.

IB needs to look into why? Whose interests is/was he representing all these years?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 30 Sep 2015 20:26

ramana wrote:P Bhat. I agree with your comment.

So Kalmadi has consistently sabotaged LCA from the beginning in 1985.

IB needs to look into why? Whose interests is/was he representing all these years?

Kalmadi could never have acted alone, he would have needed his party bosses to go with him.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2015 20:29

LCA cutaway drawing
http://i384.photobucket.com/albums/oo29 ... lcacut.jpg

Unable to see the structures to which the landing gear is attached. But some guesswork is possible. If the landing gear weighs 500 kg normally - it will weigh 2500 kg in a 5 G manoeuvre (or 4000 kg at 8G) The LCA has now flown for a decade with this extra weight and clearly the airframe is able to withstand such stresses. Now if the weight of the landing gear is reduced by 100 kg, that translates to 2000 kg in a 5G manoeuvre - i.e half ton less (or 3200 kg at 8G - almost a ton less). That means that the structure that attaches the wings to the main frame can do with reduced strength and weight because of the reduced weight of the landing gear as G forces on that structure will be smaller.

The question may be one of engineering. What are the actual load and stress bearing structures like - what materials and strength? It is plausible that some of these structures are amenable to weigh reduction relatively easily - but obviously this is just "hopeful guesswork" on my part. No inside knowledge. But if someone from inside the program says it is feasible - there may be something to it.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Sep 2015 20:47

ramana wrote:P Bhat. I agree with your comment.

So Kalmadi has consistently sabotaged LCA from the beginning in 1985.

IB needs to look into why? Whose interests is/was he representing all these years?

Isn't kalmadi an ex IAF squadron leader?? creepy of him to be doing this.

namak, nishan and all that onlee

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2015 20:49

chetak wrote:
Isn't kalmadi an ex IAF squadron leader?? creepy of him to be doing this.

namak, nishan and all that onlee

Used to fly An 12s. I was at his wedding - the family were well known to us.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 21:33

Bhaiyya-ji smile

https://twitter.com/SJha1618?ref_src=tw ... wgr^author

Saurav Jha

All stakeholders are onboard with the Mk-1A configuration. Broad improvements: Uttam AESA, maintainability improvements, MAWS, DFCC Mk-2 etc

IAF requirement for LCAs of different configurations is 400. This is the number people are talking about now.

To attain that 400 figure a parallel line in the private sector is a must. This is being resisted by you know who.

Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.

Modi would leave an enduring legacy if he can get everybody to work together to churn out the Tejas in numbers.

If this happens!!!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Sep 2015 21:42

Karan M wrote:HAL LCA line
http://s12.postimg.org/72frssh8d/AAA_LCA.jpg
Clean and functional

Karan, this is not from the new assembly hangar.

nileshjr wrote:
indranilroy wrote:It is not a IFR probe. Too small to be one.
If you guys are referring to the small protruding thinggy with red ribble to it on the left side of the cockpit, thats the pitot tube. LCA has 2 or 3 of them.

No, they are speaking of the "thing" on the port side of the leftmost plane, at pilot head height.

nileshjr wrote: One more question in my mind is, now with carry over of these changes to MK2 will ADA have to revisit MK2 design delaying it even further?? I can't decide whether I should be happy or sad to see MK1A. I would rather have put all these changes in MK2 double quick and roll it out as soon as possible in full avatar rather than doing this big config change at 11th hour.

Absolutely, There is no way in hell that Mk-1As can get FOC before 2020!!! So why this parallel Mk1A and Mk2?

The problem is that HAL and ADA don't work on this project as one. As you said, HAL and ADA should join forces to bring the Mk2 IOC to 2020. IAF could be asked to increase the Mk1 orders. Don't promise anything, but whatever can be brought forward from the Mk2 design to the Mk1 design can be done after the first batch of 40 Mk1s. Call it Mk1As and call it a day. Upgrade everything to super-light Mk1A standard during MLUs.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Sep 2015 21:47

Karan M wrote:Bhaiyya-ji smile

https://twitter.com/SJha1618?ref_src=tw ... wgr^author

Saurav Jha

All stakeholders are onboard with the Mk-1A configuration. Broad improvements: Uttam AESA, maintainability improvements, MAWS, DFCC Mk-2 etc

IAF requirement for LCAs of different configurations is 400. This is the number people are talking about now.

To attain that 400 figure a parallel line in the private sector is a must. This is being resisted by you know who.

Uttam AESA is expected to be ready for airborne testing soon. Ground based testing has delivered encouraging results.

Modi would leave an enduring legacy if he can get everybody to work together to churn out the Tejas in numbers.
If this happens!!!!

400 ?!?!

Stupendous work by the Honorable Defence Minister.
Take a bow Shri. Manohar Parrikar.
From 40 to 400 is what Im hearing and its music ..

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Sep 2015 22:02

Sirjee, you are counting the chickens before they hatch. I'd love for us to have 400 aircraft, but ...

The reality is the LCA is now at IOC and will accomplish FoC by March 2016. And that is all for Mk1. The assured orders exist for them. HAL is delayed in the IOC aircraft.

Mk-1A with weight savings and new radar etc will take another 2-3 years for IOC. And we'll only get aircraft manufactured from 2020 onwards then. So, even production rate of 1 squadron a year would only appear five years from now.

Then Mk2 may get delayed ...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2015 22:06

Saurav Jha:

There'll be no IOC/ FOC campaign per se for the Mk-1A. The improvements will be made concurrently with the production process.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 30 Sep 2015 22:09

srin wrote:Sirjee, you are counting the chickens before they hatch. I'd love for us to have 400 aircraft, but ...

The reality is the LCA is now at IOC and will accomplish FoC by March 2016. And that is all for Mk1. The assured orders exist for them. HAL is delayed in the IOC aircraft.

Mk-1A with weight savings and new radar etc will take another 2-3 years for IOC. And we'll only get aircraft manufactured from 2020 onwards then. So, even production rate of 1 squadron a year would only appear five years from now.

Then Mk2 may get delayed ...

way better than stopping at 40. HAL btw had proposed hiking the production rate from 8 to 16/year .. with a parallel pvt sector line the numbers can be filled up pretty quick.

I remember Raksha mantri talking about LCA filling up the numbers when MMRCA was cancelled.
The man is delivering.