LCA News and Discussions

[Mukesh.Kumar]

That would be the Messerschmidt 206. The first Jet Fighter. Hitler's wishes to see it as a bomber screwed up everything.

[Lalmohan]

lca was conceived of as a mig21 replacement
paf acquired the f16a, to counter which the iaf bought mig23's as a stop gap and then m2k's and then mig 29's
due to the lengthy gestation period, the spec kept changing (and the world moved on around it) - so the spec that is going into production has evolved to something comparable to the M2k, although overall flight performance is closer to mig21 (max speed is lower IIRC)
the paf has only acquired the f16c recently - for a very long time it only had f16a's
the issue with lca is about india's aerospace engineering miltiary complex becoming more mature than the point it started at
the big achievement of the programme is that, not necessarily the aircraft itself

[akimalik]

that would be the Me-262 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262.
and it was not the perfect plane by far, but yes its early induction might have had an impact on the war.
then again, you could look at the history of the Me-109, and how the Spitfire evolved through the war ... I wonder why we are so shy of evolution!

[nishu]

i do understand lca was not just all about plane but every thing surrounding it from screw making industries to paint making industries .
but why is that our forces want to go the way germans gone .
do anybody have a reason

[Rahul M]

people are being too hard on IAF. what they have asked for in Mk1 is well and truly the minimum they can accept and ADA/HAL is on its way to deliver it on its time.

there is no 'bestest' technology ala the germans involved here, please give this ridiculous notion a rest. the ideas of 'quantity has a quality of its own' and similar truisms are all valid provided the item crosses a minimum quality level, otherwise we would be fielding 5000 HPT-32 deepaks.

LCA is moving towards validating itself as an useful product and no amount of wailing on BRF is going to speed that up. we just have to be patient for the last few months till it reaches IOC.

the notion of 50 LCA/year is quite ridiculous as well, we simply don't have the trained manpower to deliver that number from day one and more importantly, neither can the IAF accept and operationalise a new aircraft at those rates.
lastly, about the # of Mk1 ordered, it is NOT set in stone. as and when the LCA settles down as a design IAF can make further orders (unless Mk2 itself is ready) without too much fuss.

[shiv]

well guys i don't understand one thing . people keep on saying lca was made to replace mig-21 but some other say it was made to counter f-16 that tsp acquired . could any body tell me why was the idea of lca originated .

The LCA was more of an attempt to develop the technology in house while building a replacement for the MiG 21.

When the LCA was conceived the MiG 21 was (as it still is) the most numerous fighter in the IAF. It was known that th MiG 21 would have to be replaced at some future date. It was also known that the future replacement aircrfat was to be more advanced than the MiG 21. In that era "more advanced" meant artificial stability, fly by wire and composites.

It was hoped that the LCA could be developed and flying in numbers before the MiG 21s were retired, giving India both a 4th gen aircraft as well as Indian industry 4th gen manufacturing capability. But as teh LCA saw slippages, the MiG 21s life had to be extended (Bison) and as there were even more slippages, India's security scenario changed so much that the IAF's needs cannot currently be met by in house manufacturing. Hence MRCA.

Some time in future our internal industrial capacity is likely to catch up. But that is for the future. We are not there yet. Do not compare with China. Do not feel bad about comparisons. After all if I want to make you feel happy I might compare you to some admirable person and if I want to insult you I will compare you to an idiot. It is so easy to make people good or bad by doing that - it is something that I call the "You farted game". I won't bother explaining that now. Do not base your feelings on who compares LCA with what.

[Indranil]

people are being too hard on IAF. what they have asked for in Mk1 is well and truly the minimum they can accept and ADA/HAL is on its way to deliver it on its time.

there is no 'bestest' technology ala the germans involved here, please give this ridiculous notion a rest. the ideas of 'quantity has a quality of its own' and similar truisms are all valid provided the item crosses a minimum quality level, otherwise we would be fielding 5000 HPT-32 deepaks.

LCA is moving towards validating itself as an useful product and no amount of wailing on BRF is going to speed that up. we just have to be patient for the last few months till it reaches IOC.

the notion of 50 LCA/year is quite ridiculous as well, we simply don't have the trained manpower to deliver that number from day one and more importantly, neither can the IAF accept and operationalise a new aircraft at those rates.
lastly, about the # of Mk1 ordered, it is NOT set in stone. as and when the LCA settles down as a design IAF can make further orders (unless Mk2 itself is ready) without too much fuss.

^^^^ I guess this is a better way of putting in what I wanted to say.

@Shiv ji ... so true about the comparisons part ... will remember that!

[Yagnasri]

But I think the major problem with the conduct of IAF seems to be lack of involvement. Unlike Navy, IAF just does not care to have indian production, development base. At least that is the impression they give in the entire episod. It is the same case with army and Arjun.

We are not going to face f22s from Pakiland or chipanda. At most they will be some bunders and super duper mig 19/21 models with some J name. So what is the problem to induct LCA Mk1 in good nomber and proceed with Mk2 as and when it is ready. Our preparation and equipment needed to be better that our expected rivals and not against the best in the world.

Further LCA is supposed to be a bread and butter low lost option to make nombers, right? then why all the high expectations ?

[shiv]

But I think the major problem with the conduct of IAF seems to be lack of involvement. Unlike Navy, IAF just does not care to have indian production, development base. At least that is the impression they give in the entire episod. It is the same case with army and Arjun.

One of the things that age (and following these things as an enthusiast for decades) teaches you is that things change, Attitudes change. It is not right to brand the IAF as this way or that. They certainly may have been that way for reasons that are well known, and keenly discussed on here - but it will pass. I am sure.

[Vivek K]

Rahul Da, LCA has gone through a gamut of tests. Nothing spectacular is planned between now and IOC. Therefore why shouldn't preparations be made to ramp up production 2011 onwards?

neither can the IAF accept and operationalise a new aircraft at those rates

The IAF is a war fighting arm and therefore needs to get cracking on a war footing to accept LCA in large numbers. It is ridiculous to build 50 LCAs per year, but the alarming fleet strength reduction is not? All the pilots that are flying desks (because their aircraft have retired) right now should be in line at a LCA simulator to be ready to fly when their LCA arrives.

Someone mentioned the Spitfire - this aircraft went through a gazillion marks to counter its oponents. Why can't the LCA be put through a similar development path?

[Yagnasri]

I hope Shiv sir is right and attitude do change. The fleet is grossly under strength. opponents have no big and advanced fighter in large numbers. So there is nothing wrong in induction of a good number MK1 and use them well at least as a interium measure.

[shiv]

One of the problems about enthusiasts discussing the military aviation industry is because there are 3 distinct groups:

The IAF as the end user is keenly aware of the technology, its advantages and drabacks and know wxactly what they need and in what numbers

Indian industry has not been and is till unable to meet the requirements of the IAF - but they are getting better and there is better understanding and coordination. And by "Indian Industry" I mean the Public sector (HAL/ADE/DRDO). The Indian private sector is nowhere in the picture. They just do not have the technology, skills or experience.

But the public in India and the enthusiasts and the media have been the least knowledgeable of the lot and greatly influenced by the popular English language media that deal primarily with western technology. If it is Discovery channel today, it used to be Popular Mechanics and Flight Magazine for me as a boy in the 60s. We read about what is advertised as the best in the west whio have been doing it for 100 years, curse our government industries for not making the best, imagine that private industry can do magic, which it cannot, and have mixed feelings about the IAF's viewpoint.

But our ignorance as enthusiasts is an indicator of our own basic backwardness in society. You live anywhere in the west - you will easily bump into some guy who works in the aviation industry. To meet such a person in India you have to be living in one of very few cities. That smaller level of development we have makes a difference. We all have to learn. The IAF must learn. Industry must learn and so must we.

[Rahul M]

vivek ji, there might still be changes between IOC and FOC depending on user feedback, in the longer run, half a dozen less fighters over a couple of years won't matter.

as for production level, we do have to keep in mind that making the LCA involves technology beyond what HAL has done so far, setting up assembly lines to required tolerance levels and training technicians to operate those correctly is not a trivial task, to do so in numbers in the first year itself might be more trouble than it's worth. I'm sure they won't want to f'up QC by trying to build 5 more airframes per year.
let's not forget that HAL a number of other demanding projects as well.
again, IAF itself itself is inducting the MKI and MRCA in the near future, they need to train pilots and ground staff for those as well. there is an upper limit to the number they can accept for induction without stretching themselves.

lastly, if everything progresses smoothly IOC onwards, we will definitely see a ramp up in production, trust me.

[D Roy]

Narayana Rao ,

your comments are mostly valid for the PAF but not for the CAF anymore.

They have got plenty of flankers flying now and let's see how the Sinocanard turns out.

They are also adding ISR assets quickly.

I think it is in terms of pure aerodynamic performance especially in a point defence role where the IAF will miss the Mig-21 the most.

[Vivek K]

.... We all have to learn. The IAF must learn. Industry must learn and so must we.

I just hope that it won't be in Mandarin - the manuals that we are learning from.

[Yagnasri]

Narayana Rao ,

your comments are mostly valid for the PAF but not for the CAF anymore.

They have got plenty of flankers flying now and let's see how the Sinocanard turns out.

They are also adding ISR assets quickly.

I think it is in terms of pure aerodynamic performance especially in a point defence role where the IAF will miss the Mig-21 the most.

Agreed on the danger from China s growing 4th Gen fighters. Still a lot of china fighters are old gen and can be countered with LCA mk1 effectively instead of sending Rambhas every where.

[Rahul M]

rao sahab, this is going badly OT but older CAF fighters pose little threat to us. do check out the older china mil watch threads, especially vivek ahuja's analysis. this has been extensively discussed before.

[Arya Sumantra]

the notion of 50 LCA/year is quite ridiculous as well, we simply don't have the trained manpower to deliver that number from day one

Why will there be, if there is no investment in creating a high production rate facility? somewhat- what came first- chicken and the egg problem.

Indigenous manufacturing progress means that IAF/MoD cannot act like going to a buffet and tasting a little bit of everything and pounce on the dish in the line-up it loves the most(massive and ready off-the-shelf availability and production capacity for an impromptu decision maker). One has to ensure that this buffet(mrca circus) is one-off and never again type of event and that means a commitment to a massive homegrown fighter facility. Why will ADA-HAL ever set-up a huge facility capable of catering to our numbers if the buyer's attitude is - develop first and then we will see. Otherwise same thing will happen with amca- not enough trained manpower while russkies make sure to seek our prior commitment of 250 on pak-fas.

Ever seen ANY major power whose services are spoilt for options? usn can't opt for rafale-m and usaf must choose from among boeing and lm. that they won't need to is insured by large budget on homegrown defence R&D spending. russkies must fly sukhoi and pakfas. same with the dragons and europeans buy their own too. Only the dumb-n-rich oildoms are- hardly an example to follow.

.... neither can the IAF accept and operationalise a new aircraft at those rates.

It is depleted. Procurement circuses can have luxury of long times but IAF wouldn't get as much time to induct and operationalize. It is thirsty now but it will anyways have to drink from a firehose.....whenever it opens.

there is an upper limit to the number they can accept for induction without stretching themselves.

IAF will anyways need to stretch itself on induction. GoI has sanctioned more squadrons now(hopefully that more part goes to indigenous fighter). So it isn't anymore about just replacing the Migs.

JMT and sorry dada if i come across as pushy

[prabir]

There is an import lobby in Army and IAF who do not encourage domestic procurement. Navy has supported domestic procurement.

[Vikram W]

anyone know when the first flight of lsp-5 is scheduled ?

[Austin]

There is an import lobby in Army and IAF who do not encourage domestic procurement. Navy has supported domestic procurement.

OT but if you look at IN and its ships there is significant critical import content in it be it Weapons,Radars Electronic,Propulsion, IMPS etc etc , they are either direct import or local Lic manf of these imported system. Adm Prakash mentions that by cost they constitute 70 - 80 % import component on capital ships.

The IN does a good PR on the indigenous procurement front and considering its budget is around 13 % of Defence budget it has low visibility and tends to get aways , and since IAF and IA has a big share of def budget they have greater visibility on import and tend to take the bricks.

[rohitvats]

There is an import lobby in Army and IAF who do not encourage domestic procurement. Navy has supported domestic procurement.

I guess it has become fashionable to bash the services at the drop of a hat - without even trying to understand the problem.

In case of LCA - Since the LCA will for the first time make transition from Development to production, will it not take time for HAL to ensure smooth transition from Development to Production? That it will need to first stabilize the whole process and ensure there are no QC issues? And that once this aspect is stabilized (based on feedback of the user) and bugs sorted out, HAL can transition to higher production numbers? Also, the question is not only about the functioning of the LCA. This initial induction is as much a test of the total supply chain, of the total aeronautical complex, than the a/c itself. That the IAF will need to test out these parameters as well, reach a stabilize state and then graduate to higher numbers.

Another point - Suppose, HAL has installed capacity of 50 LCA per year - how many pilots does IAF have to fly and manage these aircrafts? First, the instructors and senior pilots need to be trained on these a/c - and then they can pass on the skills to the junior pilots. Has anyone bothered to check the absorption rate of any new a/c type in the IAF? That initial absorption rate is unlikely to be more than 20 a/c per year? And thereafter, once the a/c type numbers are built-up, the rate of induction can be more?

And how does the quantity ordered now (40 a/c), a reflection on the numbers which will be ordered in the future? That is an interpretation of the DDM and regretably, BRFites. Where has the IAF said this? What will order of 150 Tejas now, do to the programme? Apart from satisfying the jingoistic urges of the BRFites.

I really hope people answer these questions before flying off on the tangent.

[Singha]

with mk2, pakfa and mrca delivers coming in parallel 2015 onward, IAF will need to absorb 50+ a/c per annum. time to start planning for that is now.

[nrshah]

Rohitvats,
Although I agree with you on the post, still cannot rule out that NAVY has better attitude towards the Indigenous products than IAF/IA. Also, IAF attitude is changing off late, but the real worry is IA. I hope the artillery saga proves boon in disguise...

[vishnu.nv]

IMHO The years and years of Bad PR for LCA has impact on IAF. The LCA has to get in to service and prove itself.

Once that happens automatically More orders will come. The HAL can't Ramp up the production unless there is a solid commitment from IAF or it should have solid Export orders.

Most worrying is the silence on the LCA testing front. The IOC date's are close.

[putnanja]

LCA Pilots Capture Modern IAF Squadron Philosophies

Test pilots from India’s National Flight Test Centre (NFTC), a crucial unit aiding the development of India’s Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), are on a mission to familiarize themselves with the modern philosophies of Indian Air Force (IAF) squadrons. This, they feel, will benefit the LCA project, which is nearing its initial operational clearance (IOC) phase.
...
...
“Our pilots and other experts from NFTC are trying to consolidate from all the available aircraft so as to make Tejas the best flying platform,” Subramanyam says.

“The current familiarization mission will give the test pilots the feel of the latest technologies in some of the frontline aircraft,” an IAF official says. “Tejas will have to eventually fly along with Su-30 MKIs, Mirages and the MiG 29s. The team will update themselves with the latest philosophies and compatibility in a combat environment.”
...
...
ADA and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), which developed Tejas, are preparing the limited series production (LSP-5) aircraft for its first flight in the next two or three weeks.

“The LSP-5 will be a complete, final-configuration platform. We are making slight modifications to the cockpit in consultations with the NFTC test pilots in making Tejas a complete services version,” Subramanyam says.
...
...

[Pratyush]

Lets look at the number of AC authorized & currently in service with the IAF. (Numbers are a guess and don't factor in attrition, so please don't shoot me down )

SU 30 MKI 270 (Authorized)
MRCA 126 (Confirmed at the moment )
Mig 29 75 approx. (to go by 2030)
Mirage 2000, 50 approx (To go by 2030)
Mig 27 140 approx to go by 2020
Mig 21 200 approx (To go by 2015)
Jaguar 100 to 125 Approx. (To go by 2025)

Of this the 21 will gone by 2015. the 27s and Jaguars between 2020 and 2025. the M2k and the 29 by 2030.

The IAF will need to add at least 600 aircrafts between 2015 and 2030 in order to maintain the numbers and add additional sqs in service. In order to get to 60 combat squadrons as authorised for the IAF.

I for one don't foresee the IAF getting any additional foreign aircraft beyond the PAK FA. The numbers associated currently for the same are 250, the IAF will still need 350 modern combat jets. To acheave the numbers. In this scenario the only candidate will be the LCA.

So regardless of what happens we can be sure that the LCA will have an assured future with the IAF.

[vishnu.nv]

Can't Say that. LCA Will only be accepted if it proves the capablites.
Take this scenario, If IAF is ordering a Single engine aircraft as MRCA, and IAF is not confident in LCA capablities, for sure they are gonna order more of MRCA's.
After 2015 the IAF will be Inducting the MRCA,LCA MK2 and FFGA together. The IAF will have the absolute freedom to decide up on the numbers baced on capablities they want. This also again depends up on the factor how speed the HAL can built LCA. I am all for Mig-21 type production of LCA and Induction up to 400 Aircrafts in both Navy and Airforce.
Its really frustrating that ADA and IAF could not select a Engine for the MK2. Hope the ADA has done serious work on MK2 and We can see a Prototype rollout soon once the engines selected.

[chackojoseph]

IMHO, LCA is a point defense fighter. No MMRCA can fill its role.

[vishnu.nv]

chacko,
Which is the point defence Fighter for Sweedish Airforce? or USAF?

The IAF needed the Point defece Fighter to Replace the Mig which was the requiremnt in 90's. But Right now its not looking for a Point defence fighter, If it was the case we would have seen more orders for the MK1.

The IAF is looking for aircraft with multirole capablities which would be MK2.

[Willy]

Me thinks the IAF suffers from a battle of Longenwala hangover. Where the IAF bombed out the S**T of the Pakistani tanks. Thats their instance for designing the LCA as a multirole aircraft. If not with its shorter range it would have been better to design the LCA as a true point-defence fighter. Cant see the LCA crossing the himalayas to bomb the Chinese in Tibet.

[Wickberg]

IMHO, LCA is a point defense fighter. No MMRCA can fill its role.

No one designs a "point defense fighter" in 2010. No one has done it since the 1970s. If India intends the LCA being that well then... it´s a pretty crappy aircraft and at least 30 years behind its time.

If India produces or buy 100 multi-role fighters, then they will have 100 attack-planes, 100 fighters and 100 recon-planes.

[Telang]

Me thinks the IAF suffers from a battle of Longenwala hangover. Where the IAF bombed out the S**T of the Pakistani tanks. Thats their instance for designing the LCA as a multirole aircraft. If not with its shorter range it would have been better to design the LCA as a true point-defence fighter. Cant see the LCA crossing the himalayas to bomb the Chinese in Tibet.

But I feel there is a way to make LCA cross Himalyas and bomb the Chinese. I think the IAF too knows the way of doing it. Not a matter to discuss publicly though. Stretch your imagination, you may find some specific conditional scenario wherein LCA could cross Himalayas.

Once a platform gets tested for all scenarios, it could have some marginally modified model variations for each role. If we have imagination, sky is the limit. I prefer LCA as a multi role fighter. In the present design configuration, I dont see any excessive or unwanted baggage when the roles are shifted.

[Gaur]

IMHO, LCA is a point defense fighter. No MMRCA can fill its role.

Sir,
You are a professional journalist so I would hope that you would at least give a cursory reading to the subject. If you would compare the specs of LCA (specially payload and range) with other single engined multirole and point defence fighters, you would find that LCA is without a doubt a multirole fighter. As Wickerberg rightly said, it would simply not do to produce a point defence fighter in this day and age.

Me thinks the IAF suffers from a battle of Longenwala hangover. Where the IAF bombed out the S**T of the Pakistani tanks. Thats their instance for designing the LCA as a multirole aircraft. If not with its shorter range it would have been better to design the LCA as a true point-defence fighter. Cant see the LCA crossing the himalayas to bomb the Chinese in Tibet.

Truly, your understanding of IAF's "hangover" and war doctrine is awe inspiring. LCA is about to receive IOC as a multi role fighter and you think that it would have been better to design LCA as point defence fighter? That is a truly brilliant plan. In an age where point defence fighters are not even bought by countries like Algeria and Uganda (who have ordered Su-30 btw), you want IAF to start inducting point defence fighters in 21st century? Even JF-17 is not a point defence fighter.

And you cant see LCA crossing Himalayas? Well, that says a lot about your sight, doesn't it? Obviously, it will not be able to carry huge payloads but what source do you have that it will be unable to "bomb the Chinese' as you put it?
At least think a little before posting. A little research would also not go waste in your case.
Will be waiting for your next insight into IAF and fighter a/cs with bated breath.

Sigh! The rest of the threads seem to be going the MRCA way. Hope the gurus will participate more to bring some sensibility to the discussion.

[archan]

[quote="Telang"]
Please check your PM inbox.

[chackojoseph]

IMHO, LCA is a point defense fighter. No MMRCA can fill its role.

No one designs a "point defense fighter" in 2010. No one has done it since the 1970s. If India intends the LCA being that well then... it´s a pretty crappy aircraft and at least 30 years behind its time.

If India produces or buy 100 multi-role fighters, then they will have 100 attack-planes, 100 fighters and 100 recon-planes.

Sir,
You are a professional journalist so I would hope that you would at least give a cursory reading to the subject. If you would compare the specs of LCA (specially payload and range) with other single engined multirole and point defence fighters, you would find that LCA is without a doubt a multirole fighter. As Wickerberg rightly said, it would simply not do to produce a point defence fighter in this day and age.

Right! It will be a decade before the birdie will see service. it will be primarily intended for the point defense role. After 200 odd of the production, its highly unlikely that it will be available for fresh production. World is expected to move on to other generations and UCAV's. Its highly unlikely we will see her in offensive roles.

No matter what specs it has, it will be a light fighter for primarily point defense roles. More mature MRCA's will be used for other roles. LCA will replace MiG-21 role "light agile point defence fighter."

[prabir]

I am not an expert in this area. I would only want to see the induction process to be hastened up because of the positive impact it is going to have on morale of sceintists and engineers of DRDO, NAL, ADA and HAL.
The best way to develop a product is to follow an incremental model. In 1st increment, deliver something that meets most of the requirements, and then continue to develop it further till it reaches technological obsolescence.
Perfecting everything in one go is not possible. Simulated tests cannot always result in a perfect product. There is no test better than end-user usage in operational conditions. When we import off-the shelf product from say Russia, is it always perfect ? There is always an end-user feedback which goes on to improve it in multiple increments. If we really want to develop end-to-end capability in high-end defense hardware, both users and designers have to collaborate instead of pointing fingers at one another.

[rohitvats]

I tried to do some number crunching to see the number of LCA that may be required. This is a bit simplistic in nature but IMO, can serve as reference point:

Please read the enteries as follows:

(Aircraft Type/Existing Strength/Planned/Current Sqd. Strength/Future Sqn. Strength)

1. FGFA (0/150/0/8)
2. SU-30MKI(105/270/6/15)
3. MMRCA(0/200/0/11)-------------------> (I've assumed that eventually 200 odd MMRCA will be inducted)
4. LCA(0/40/0/02)------------------------> (Held constant for illustration)
5. Mirage 2000(57/0/3/3)
6. MiG-29(67/0/3/3)
7. Mig-21Bison(108/0/6/0)
8. Mig-21Bis(56/0/2/0)
9. Mig-21(others)(90/0/5/0)
10. MiG-27(All)(99/0/5.5/0)
11. Jaguar(All)(102/0/5/0)

Current Squadron Strength (2010) - 36.2

Future Squadron Strength (2025) - 37 (with LCA held constant at 40) - By this time even the upgraded M2K and MiG-29 should be on their way out. Even with increased MMRCA and full FGFA induction (assumed to be 150), there will be requirement for additional 8 Squadron worth of combat aircraft. Bulk of these by this time, IMO, will be filled with Mk2 Version of LCA.

[Gaur]

Right! It will be a decade before the birdie will see service.

IOC is expected to be achieved by the year end so I have really no idea about what you mean by 10 years.

it will be primarily intended for the point defense role. ............
No matter what specs it has, it will be a light fighter for primarily point defense roles. More mature MRCA's will be used for other roles. LCA will replace MiG-21 role "light agile point defence fighter."

What source do you have that LCA will be "primarily" used for point defence role? If that was to be the case, why was such trouble taken to design lca with high payload and long range? Why was time wasted with ground weapons testing?
Consider a situation where India and Pakistan are at war. Initially, India would concentrate on achieving air superiority. Most of PAF fighters would be busy defending their own airspace. Some may try to enter Indian airspace and as per your envisioned role for lca they will be intercepted by Tejas. All this is well and good. But after that? After we have achieved air superiority and there is very little danger of Paf fighters invading Indian air space, would you have all the LCAs grounded on the airbase and the pilots being sent on a vacation to goa? Don't you think that IAF would rather prefer that LCAs be used for strike mission ground support. Believe me, there are never enough a/cs for strike missions. Sorties after sorties are sent with no rest and yet the commanders have to make the difficult choice of choosing which target is to be left for another day and which ground force has to be denied critical air support and left to fend for themselves. Even if we were to have 42 squadrons, these choices would have to be made and considering our current depleted strength, it is ridiculous to think that LCAs would be used for "primarily" for point defence role.

After 200 odd of the production, its highly unlikely that it will be available for fresh production. World is expected to move on to other generations and UCAV's. Its highly unlikely we will see her in offensive roles.

5th gen and UCAVs you say? It will take even US some time to have majority of its AF fighters to be 5th gen. And as for UCAVs, no current or in development UCAV can be considered a substitute for a fighter. And this is for US. France, one of the leaders in aerospace, has no stealth fighter program. Sweden has no such program. They are also not part of JSF program and rest of the Europe's ability to buy F-35s in formidable nos remain questionable (given the rising cost of F-35 program. Last I heard, it's projected cost was $380 billion). Russia cannot be expected to field PAK-FA in huge nos any time soon. But the above mentioned Nations are not even our adversaries. Who are our potential adversaries? Pakistan and China. China has just developed a 4th gen fighter with the help of Russia and Isreal. You really think that they would be rolling out 5th gen fighters and super maneuverable stealth UCAVs any time soon?
So, considering our neighborhood, Tejas would remain a useful "multi-role" a/c for a long time to come.

[Wickberg]

What source do you have that LCA will be "primarily" used for point defence role? If that was to be the case, why was such trouble taken to design lca with high payload and long range? Why was time wasted with ground weapons testing?


What ground testing weapon testing do you talk about? Dropping an iron bomb in level flight? A Cessna could do that...