LCA news and discussion

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 Dec 2009 23:18

Anyone know a good resource where one can see the difference between these planes? As a newbie I'm curious to know what the difference between the LCA/MCA/MRCA/F-35 etc. /other comparable planes is etc etc

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Dec 2009 23:42

carl, there's no easy way to do it. most of the ones in your list are from different categories in the first place. you have to do it the hard way. I don't know of any resource that does exactly what you want.
for the LCA I'll suggest having a look at the links in the first post of this thread. for the rest, start with wiki and follow the links therein under the references.

when you are done, write up an article with all the comparisons so that the next person who looks for one such article can read your article !

in any case, you will get a better response to this type of questions in the newbie thread.
regards.

arya · Post by **arya** » 24 Dec 2009 23:44

Carl_T wrote:Anyone know a good resource where one can see the difference between these planes? As a newbie I'm curious to know what the difference between the LCA/MCA/MRCA/F-35 etc. /other comparable planes is etc etc

you will get a better response to this type of questions in the newbie thread

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 25 Dec 2009 06:36

Carl_T wrote:Anyone know a good resource where one can see the difference between these planes? As a newbie I'm curious to know what the difference between the LCA/MCA/MRCA/F-35 etc. /other comparable planes is etc etc

for in formation on LCA head to www.lca-tejas.org / MCA is still a paper plane you can go to wikipedia to start with and also other planes

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Dec 2009 06:48

Carl_T wrote:Anyone know a good resource where one can see the difference between these planes? As a newbie I'm curious to know what the difference between the LCA/MCA/MRCA/F-35 etc. /other comparable planes is etc etc

Sadly there is no single resource that I know of that does this today. When I was young and all the way up to the 1980s we had "The Observer's Book of Aircraft" that has silhouettes that told you right away the differences.

However you can still use a net search for silhouettes and uses Wiki or other resources to read about difference in size, engines and armament carried
LCA

http://indopakdef.files.wordpress.com/2 ... henar4.jpg

F 35

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... hem_02.jpg

Remember that MRCA is not one aircraft but a list of 5 individual aircraft. MCA is only a concept

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 25 Dec 2009 09:18

Hah thank you, I can find out the details about the plances, I was actually referring to more about the roles the different planes play in the overall strategy of the airforce rather than their physical specs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Dec 2009 09:38

Carl_T wrote:Hah thank you, I can find out the details about the plances, I was actually referring to more about the roles the different planes play in the overall strategy of the airforce rather than their physical specs.

Wrong thread. Please post this query in the newbie thread.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 25 Dec 2009 10:15

gotcha

Out of curiosity, member since 1970 really????

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 25 Dec 2009 11:12

^^
There was world wide web in 1970, really????

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 25 Dec 2009 11:27

Gaur wrote: There was world wide web in 1970, really????

In India.... first Internet service was launched on August 14, 1995 by VSNL ...and on the face of the earth...first ISP poped up in the late 1980's with companies such as PSINet, UUNET, Netcom and Portal but were mainly for restricted networks.

So...I think it would be interesting to know about predate existence of BHARAT RAKSHAK...I hope....It would have been like a CHAUPAL or typical Panwala Group of few selected people...!

Anyhow...I am open to words of wisdom from gurus of the time and I am also sorry for an irrelevant post...!

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 25 Dec 2009 12:59

Nah, it has to do with Epoch time. Basically, on UNIX machines (and other descendants such as Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OSX etc. and also on several other software packages), time is internally stored as number of seconds from a base date called an "Epoch Date" (sort of like how we humans keep dates as A.D. where the base starting date is the birth of Jesus Christ). UNIX picked 1/1/1970 as the start date and stores other date/times as number of seconds since that date. The MySQL database engine that this forum uses also utilizes the same scheme to store dates. So if someone enters 0 into a field that stores a date/time value, it gets translated to 1/1/1970. In case of the oldest members in this forum, the join date was lost (or not present) when the forum upgraded its software and so they all got a 0 value stored in the Join Date field in the database. Hence it shows up as 1/1/1970.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Admins, please move/prune posts at earliest opportunity. Thank you.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 25 Dec 2009 14:56

sumshyam,
You do take things seriously, don't you? It was sarcasm to Carl_T's post.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 25 Dec 2009 16:23

Gaur wrote:sumshyam,
You do take things seriously, don't you? It was sarcasm to Carl_T's post.

i seriously need to do...SARCASM 101...course...any tutor over here...

!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2009 01:03

this article by AM Rajkumar has some updated details about LCA weight.
http://frontierindia.net/light-combat-a ... as-testing

hat tip to Teer @ keypubs for digging it up.

TD-1 : the aircraft tipped the scales at 6,780 kg with Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI) against a targeted weight of around 6,300kg. Program managers very wisely decided to launch a weight reduction exercise.

TD-2
The air intake duct was redesigned for this aircraft to make it easy to manufacture. Some weight reduction was also attempted which resulted in a weight saving of 110 kg. The airframe weighed 6,670 kg when manufactured.

The part count, which was 10,000 for TD-1’s airframe, was reduced to 7,000 in this case. The airframe weighed 6,430kg when complete which meant the weight reduction exercise had reduced 350kg of weight, a praise worthy achievement.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 28 Dec 2009 02:18

TD-1 : the aircraft tipped the scales at 6,780 kg with Flight Test Instrumentation (FTI) against a targeted weight of around 6,300kg. Program managers very wisely decided to launch a weight reduction exercise.

The part count, which was 10,000 for TD-1’s airframe, was reduced to 7,000 in this case. The airframe weighed 6,430kg when complete which meant the weight reduction exercise had reduced 350kg of weight, a praise worthy achievement.

The figure of 6300 kg target weight would have to be without radar. So including the radar is should be around the 6500 kg-mark that was previously agreed upon.

TD-2
The air intake duct was redesigned for this aircraft to make it easy to manufacture. Some weight reduction was also attempted which resulted in a weight saving of 110 kg. The airframe weighed 6,670 kg when manufactured.

It could sound childish but who much weight can DSI take off the intakes ??

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2009 02:22

The figure of 6300 kg target weight would have to be without radar. So including the radar is should be around the 6500 kg-mark that was previously agreed upon.

if the radar wasn't there an equivalent ballast would have been used. you cannot simply add or subtract a major weight from a fighter prototype.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Dec 2009 14:11

KrishG wrote:The figure of 6300 kg target weight would have to be without radar. So including the radar is should be around the 6500 kg-mark that was previously agreed upon.

did you read Rahul's posts earlier ? the radar may not be there, but you put in ballast to compensate for its weight to keep the CG in the range where they will have it during normal flight. so the weight will not go up due to radar being added. on the Tornado ADV which was being developed from the Tornado IDS, they had a concrete block put in the radome to simulate the weight of the radar when it was still in development.

It could sound childish but who much weight can DSI take off the intakes ??

on the Tejas, its a little different- they have a "channel" that is connected from the intake splitter plate to the top of the wing. it brings in fresh air flow to the top of the wing, generating vortices that help keep the airflow attached at high angle of attack, which increases lift. you'll need to re-design that as well. but if you took out the intake splitter plates, it may reduce the weight a bit, depending on what material its made of. however, I've never heard of any work being done in India on this. China of course, definitely did some industrial espionage, to get LockMart's technology and work on the DSI intakes. India is incapable of doing anything like that.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Dec 2009 21:53

Gaur wrote:^^
There was world wide web in 1970, really????

Hey now, perfectly legitimate question!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Dec 2009 15:00

Carl_T wrote:
Gaur wrote:^^
There was world wide web in 1970, really????
Hey now, perfectly legitimate question!

You are new, so it is understandable - BR is ALWAYS ahead of the curve, it was figured out here even before the Yanks knew they had it!

CM

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 31 Dec 2009 16:14

Carl_T wrote:Anyone know a good resource where one can see the difference between these planes? As a newbie I'm curious to know what the difference between the LCA/MCA/MRCA/F-35 etc. /other comparable planes is etc etc

Hi

Wiki has a stats comparison of the fighters in MMRCA competition, its quite detailed so take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMRCA#Comp ... g_aircraft

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 31 Dec 2009 17:37

While we all are thinking of Tejas being Mig 21 replacement, Tejas of today can efficiently replace Mig 27 and Jaguar as well...
Specs are very similar related weapon load, no of hard points, range etc

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 31 Dec 2009 17:58

There were reports some time ago that IAF wants the wing size of Tejas to be increased inorder to carry more weapons?

Would it be possible to add, over wing pylons to the present and future Tejas's to acheive some of this?

Like those in the Jaguar of this video @ 1:02, used for AAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNVIr92zDY

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2009 18:14

no high performance fighter seems to carry overwing A2A weapons at all - except the jaguar which is not considered high in raw performance.

there is a diff between number of weapons vs heavier weapons. with a stronger engine and some structural work
maybe the pylon ratings can increase, but a new wing will need years of fresh testing.

the trend worldwide is that weapons are getting smaller and more precise, not bigger. what needed a 1000lb bomb to achieve in 1980s may be possible with a 1m cep 100lb bomb these days.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Dec 2009 18:47

nrshah wrote:While we all are thinking of Tejas being Mig 21 replacement, Tejas of today can efficiently replace Mig 27 and Jaguar as well...
Specs are very similar related weapon load, no of hard points, range etc

thinking of the LCA as a mig-21 replacement in terms of capabilities finished in mid 80's itself. IAF's first ASR asked something like that, which would have created something like the JF-17 of the 90's. it was subsequently revised in the 80's itself to create the ASR for the LCA.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 31 Dec 2009 19:02

But what options we really have to LCA even at Mark 1. How costly are these options. What are the adversories of LCA. I feel we can always use a LCA Mark 1 level fighter in good number.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Jan 2010 02:09

VijayKumarSinha wrote:There were reports some time ago that IAF wants the wing size of Tejas to be increased inorder to carry more weapons?

Would it be possible to add, over wing pylons to the present and future Tejas's to acheive some of this?

Like those in the Jaguar of this video @ 1:02, used for AAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNVIr92zDY

I don't think that the Tejas needs a larger wing at all and can't recall any report of the IAF wanting the Tejas to carry more weapons..could you provide the source ?

Tejas' wing loading is already very low thanks to the large surface area of its wing compared to the weight of the aircraft itself. and you cannot add an overwing pylon without increasing drag and compromising on the wing's performance itself..on the Jaguar, what was done was to add the pylon to the wing-fence, which basically prevent spanwise flow and tip-stall. the Tejas has no wing fences, which is a good thing, and 7 weapon pylons + 1 pylon for Litening LDP is pretty good for a fighter as small as the Tejas. if they develop a dual rail like DRDO did for the Sea Harrier, it'll be good enough.

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 01 Jan 2010 02:42

Kartik wrote:
VijayKumarSinha wrote:There were reports some time ago that IAF wants the wing size of Tejas to be increased inorder to carry more weapons?

Would it be possible to add, over wing pylons to the present and future Tejas's to acheive some of this?

Like those in the Jaguar of this video @ 1:02, used for AAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNVIr92zDY
I don't think that the Tejas needs a larger wing at all and can't recall any report of the IAF wanting the Tejas to carry more weapons..could you provide the source ?

I can't find it.

I will keep looking for it, but I swear to <put your god here> I read it in some reputable place. The reason, I ignored it then, was because I thought, Oh great, this will add another couple of years to the program! But, I think it was a suggestion of sorts by IAF.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jan 2010 06:37

Kartik wrote:
VijayKumarSinha wrote:There were reports some time ago that IAF wants the wing size of Tejas to be increased inorder to carry more weapons?

Would it be possible to add, over wing pylons to the present and future Tejas's to acheive some of this?

Like those in the Jaguar of this video @ 1:02, used for AAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNVIr92zDY
I don't think that the Tejas needs a larger wing at all and can't recall any report of the IAF wanting the Tejas to carry more weapons..could you provide the source ?

Tejas' wing loading is already very low thanks to the large surface area of its wing compared to the weight of the aircraft itself. and you cannot add an overwing pylon without increasing drag and compromising on the wing's performance itself..on the Jaguar, what was done was to add the pylon to the wing-fence, which basically prevent spanwise flow and tip-stall. the Tejas has no wing fences, which is a good thing, and 7 weapon pylons + 1 pylon for Litening LDP is pretty good for a fighter as small as the Tejas. if they develop a dual rail like DRDO did for the Sea Harrier, it'll be good enough.

Here's a pretty good pic of load weight per pylon:

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 01 Jan 2010 18:17

Kartik wrote:
VijayKumarSinha wrote:There were reports some time ago that IAF wants the wing size of Tejas to be increased inorder to carry more weapons?

Would it be possible to add, over wing pylons to the present and future Tejas's to acheive some of this?

Like those in the Jaguar of this video @ 1:02, used for AAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNVIr92zDY
I don't think that the Tejas needs a larger wing at all and can't recall any report of the IAF wanting the Tejas to carry more weapons..could you provide the source ?

Aha! It was the Mark 2 that is supposed to have bigger wings along with a change in fuselage (because of the new engine):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ark-2.html

But, this is not the report that I had originally read, that one mentioned that the IAF wanted bigger wings on LCA to carry more
number of weapons. So, I guess those requirements are being incorporated into Mark 2 to satisfy the IAF.

"The LCA Mark 2 will have a bigger and more powerful engine, the fuselage will be changed, it will have bigger wings, and the aircraft will be more aerodynamic,"
says Hindustan Aeronautics chairman Ashok Baweja, whose company manufactures the fighter.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 01 Jan 2010 20:21

"The LCA Mark 2 will have a bigger and more powerful engine, the fuselage will be changed, it will have bigger wings, and the aircraft will be more aerodynamic,"
says Hindustan Aeronautics chairman Ashok Baweja, whose company manufactures the fighter.

It may well be to retain the original wing loading at the design stage. The Mk-2 could be as much as a tin heavier than the original design so, ADA could be thinking of increasing the wing loading to that of the original design specification.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 01 Jan 2010 20:58

VijayKumarSinha wrote:But, this is not the report that I had originally read, that one mentioned that the IAF wanted bigger wings on LCA to carry more
number of weapons.

Vijay,

I too have read the requirement of increased no of weapon pylons on Mk2. Unfortunately no luck in finding the same. But i distinctly remember as i questioned myself whether this increase in pylons may become the reason of EJ200 and FE 414 to be underpowered and repeat of history and all...

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 01 Jan 2010 21:09

One of the brilliant tactic of managers (especially GOI and MOD projects) is to talk about Mark II, when we are not even off the mark. Yeah in a way we are already off the mark.

Its is now 2010, and we still talk about 1974 sanctions even 1998 sanctions are now decade past...

I bet this will end up like HF24. Sorry that is reality. Just like Barak vs Aakah.

PS:

Perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse.

C. Northcote Parkinson

Let HAL productionize the simple LCA... aparam parklaam

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jan 2010 22:01

Its is now 2010, and we still talk about 1974 sanctions even 1998 sanctions are now decade past...

really ? defence labs in India can get any item it needs for R&D purposes ? is that so ?
they are not under any sanctions anymore ?

I bet this will end up like HF24. Sorry that is reality. Just like Barak vs Aakah.

it looks to be anything BUT another HF-24. sorry it is anything but reality. OTOH what you propose, namely,
start designing the follow on only when each and every nut and bolt on the Mk1 is shining is the perfect recipe to go the HF-24 way.

Let HAL productionize the simple LCA

and then what ?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 02 Jan 2010 00:01

^^ Rahul, lets not jump the gun on every LCA critic. As humble LCA followers I think we should let DRDO/HAL prove its worth. Let their work speak for them.

BR has defended LCA's snail pace development for over a decade to see >10 prototypes fly in 10 years. At that time I used to go in nickkers, now it will be my kids turn to wear nickkers in few years time

.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Jan 2010 00:39

VijayKumarSinha wrote: Aha! It was the Mark 2 that is supposed to have bigger wings along with a change in fuselage (because of the new engine):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ark-2.html

But, this is not the report that I had originally read, that one mentioned that the IAF wanted bigger wings on LCA to carry more number of weapons. So, I guess those requirements are being incorporated into Mark 2 to satisfy the IAF.

it just says larger wing- basically to keep the Tejas wing loading the same, but even that is not confirmed. The Gripen NG has a higher MTOW and empty weight, but no increase in wing area, so a higher wing loading. the article you quoted doesn't say that the IAF wanted more weapons to be carried.

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 02 Jan 2010 00:50

Kartik wrote:
it just says larger wing- basically to keep the Tejas wing loading the same, but even that is not confirmed. the article you quoted doesn't say that the IAF wanted more weapons to be carried.

Umm, I am at a loss here, how does it not confirm that mk-2 will have a larger wing?

The Gripen NG has a higher MTOW and empty weight, but no increase in wing area, so a higher wing loading.

That might be so, but this isn't Gripen NG, or is it?

the article you quoted doesn't say that the IAF wanted more weapons to be carried.

Ok, this is what i had said:

"But, this is not the report that I had originally read, that one mentioned that the IAF wanted bigger wings on LCA to carry more
number of weapons. So, I guess those requirements are being incorporated into Mark 2 to satisfy the IAF."

All I am saying through this article is that Tejas mk-2 will have larger wings than the first one. And that I still havn't found the article where air force has asked/suggested/required ADA to have larger wings so that they could add more pylons to it in order to carry more weapons.

What I did find was this article: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/05/stor ... 261400.htm
which says:

Recently, the IAF even made a few suggestions on improvements in Tejas Mk2, including a more powerful engine, optimisation of the aerodynamic qualities and weight of the aircraft and “dropping and replacing” certain parts to take care of obsolescence.

It also says this:

As indicated by an IAF committee in 2004, any further order will be subject to the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the designer and developer of the LCA programme, showing “firm visibility that the aircraft will meet the ASR.

So, if I understand this correctly IAF “suggested” to ADA that it needs a more powerful engine, it needs better aerodynamic qualities, e.t.c and then ADA is going to act upon these “suggestions” to come up with Tejas mk-2, which as the earlier article suggested would have improvements similar to the “suggestions” made by IAF.

I don’t know what “suggestions” mean because as far as I know there is one such thing as requirements document which contains requirement specifications. Which are concrete project objectives that have to be met, or else.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Jan 2010 01:05

Sid wrote:^^ Rahul, lets not jump the gun on every LCA critic. As humble LCA followers I think we should let DRDO/HAL prove its worth. Let their work speak for them.

BR has defended LCA's snail pace development for over a decade to see >10 prototypes fly in 10 years. At that time I used to go in nickkers, now it will be my kids turn to wear nickkers in few years time .

please compare with any other similar project worldwide and then tell me if the term snail pace is justified or not. the gripen for instance first flew in 1988 and achieved IOC in 1997, after 9 years.

Tejas first flew in 2001 and has completed all aerodynamic IOC requirements by 2009 itself (8 years) and is on the verge of achieving IOC in 2010 (9 years). this when saab has the history of more than 50 years of state-of-the-art fighter development behind it and also access to every resources and expertise in the western world. people should understand that these projects are not the engineering equivalent of making instant coffee. this is not a WW2 propeller driven fighter that goes from design board to frontline service in under 2 years. modern jet fighter development is time consuming business where one single misstep/accident can put you back by a couple of years (as happened with the CLAW sanctions). the projects can't hurry up suddenly just because forum warriors like us want it done according to our unrealistic expectations.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Jan 2010 01:11

VijayKumarSinha wrote:Umm, I am at a loss here, how does it not confirm that mk-2 will have a larger wing?

because most other reports on the Tejas Mk2 do not indicate that a wing re-design will be carried out, because its a lot of work.

That might be so, but this isn't Gripen NG, or is it?

yes, I was just drawing a comparison with the NG for some perspective - that its likely that we won't see a wing surface area increase. its a lot more work and would require more effort than what the timelines would allow, IMO.

All I am saying through this article is that Tejas mk-2 will have larger wings than the first one. And that I still havn't found the article where air force has asked/suggested/required ADA to have larger wings so that they could add more pylons to it in order to carry more weapons.

I'll wait to see your original source before commenting on how authentic the article may be. half of what DDM writes is nothing more than un-educated guesses.

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 02 Jan 2010 01:45

Kartik wrote: because most other reports on the Tejas Mk2 do not indicate that a wing re-design will be carried out, because its a lot of work.

So you are saying that an article on a well known website that quotes the chairman of HAL ad verbatim in stating that Tejas Mk-2 will have larger wings is not sufficient proof?
So, who exactly , to whom and where has to state that wing sizes are going to be different to constitute as a sufficient proof for you?

I know that you know a hundred times more than me and I am here to learn from you, but really, can you show me these 'other reports' which actually state that Tejas Mk2 will not have wing redesign ?

Kartik wrote: yes, I was just drawing a comparison with the NG for some perspective - that its likely that we won't see a wing surface area increase. its a lot more work and would require more effort than what the timelines would allow, IMO.

I know what you meant by it originally, but what I meant to say was you know as well as I do that DRDO/HAL works in mysterious ways, besides what I am trying to say is if your perpetually unhappy customer “suggests” to you that they want bigger wings than you give them bigger wings.

Kartik wrote: I'll wait to see your original source before commenting on how authentic the article may be. half of what DDM writes is nothing more than un-educated guesses.

I know, but seriously, what is the point in finding that source now when quotes from HAL Chairman are not enough for you.

May be I should baccha nap ADA’s chief designer to say it and then present you with some bullu prints of mk-2

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 02 Jan 2010 03:04

Rahul M wrote:
Sid wrote:^^ Rahul, lets not jump the gun on every LCA critic. As humble LCA followers I think we should let DRDO/HAL prove its worth. Let their work speak for them.

BR has defended LCA's snail pace development for over a decade to see >10 prototypes fly in 10 years. At that time I used to go in nickkers, now it will be my kids turn to wear nickkers in few years time .
please compare with any other similar project worldwide and then tell me if the term snail pace is justified or not. the gripen for instance first flew in 1988 and achieved IOC in 1997, after 9 years.

Tejas first flew in 2001 and has completed all aerodynamic IOC requirements by 2009 itself (8 years) and is on the verge of achieving IOC in 2010 (9 years). this when saab has the history of more than 50 years of state-of-the-art fighter development behind it and also access to every resources and expertise in the western world. people should understand that these projects are not the engineering equivalent of making instant coffee. this is not a WW2 propeller driven fighter that goes from design board to frontline service in under 2 years. modern jet fighter development is time consuming business where one single misstep/accident can put you back by a couple of years (as happened with the CLAW sanctions). the projects can't hurry up suddenly just because forum warriors like us want it done according to our unrealistic expectations.

A point everyone should consider, before complaining about the time used. Things take time. Even developing a car takes 2-3 years.
I think people demand too much. How can you expect the gueys at HAL to produce worlds best fighter, on a shoe sting budget, and no prior history of developing Fighters (The people from Marut, were all gone, as there were no continuation of the programme).
Get real, and set realistic sucess paramaters. PersonallyI am happy if the LCA can make a use of itself at 50% highter cost, compared to any import.