Aditya_V wrote:Yes Gaur, but considering the changes required on MK-II, new engine, new airframe with larger wings and higher payload, a new AESA radar to be validated. If these changes are made then in fact LCA- MK2 will effectively be a new aircraft which again need to go through all the processes of MK-1. So this will take time. And we have lots of Mig21 Bis, Bison, Mig-27 , Jags which will be due for retirement in the next 2 decades
Given that fact, why not begin designing an aircraft with Internal weapon bays, appropriate design surface and angles, engine inlet with the Blades hidden etc. Altest I hope the MCA has changed from twin engine to single engine, so that it can provide the nos while the FGFA is the top end.
May I ask what gives you the impression that a Mark II aircraft requires all the changes you have named? I would be keen on learning of Mark II aircraft anywhere in the world that have required new airframe and new wings so radical that everything has to be retested from scratch. I always thought that is called "New aircraft"
Please think. If Mark II LCA is a new aircraft, why would it be called Mark II?
If MCA is conceived with twin engines why do you hope that it should become single engined? Why do you believe that a totally new design of MCA based on your imagination will give numbers. Surely if your imagination is fertile enough the same numbers can be obtained with twin engine MCA?
I am in total agreement with your comment that MiG 21s and 27s will be retired in the next 2 decades. Sadly the Su 30 MKI too will be due for retirement shortly thereafter. In 4 decades. Maybe we can plan for a Mark II Su 30 with single engine for numbers?