Dash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
[I wil"Oscar, post: 8448521, member: 14956"]Failed is only according to you, but NOT for Indian research and analysis they will keep trying until they realize the genious of Thomas Alva Edison. The kick always comes from the bottom.
But tell me if it has failed and I will show you it gas not. You will stumble upon something good which you haven't so far.[/QUOTE]
Again, this particular point I have ALREADY mentioned countless times in terms of the ancillary benefits of the program.
But, as the objective of delivering a Mig-21 replacement to the IAF within a justifiable timeframe and where its relevancy to the IAF would be beyond just a token "purchase" of a domestic product; It has failed.
The LCA program is the failure. Yes, it has had successes within that failure. But at the end, you have a jet(nothing wrong with the aerodynamics or concept of it) that has currently many shortcomings that keep it from being capable of front line service including glaring ones regarding maintenance processes.
So after a first flight in 2001 we have a jet that still has performance and manufacturing kinks to work out in its original spec which the end user doesn't really want in the first place, and the newer spec isnt to see the light of day till 2021. Well, I am very hard pressed to find ANYTHING that defines the LCA program or even the Tejas fighter(not the design or concept but as a whole product) a partial(if the complete term is too acerbic) failure.
Even the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, a fighter that for all reports, for all records was a great jet in terms of everything it did; is defined as a failure by aviation experts simply because it never sold and it never found a customer. Here is a case of a fighter that despite its promising design and concept; isnt ready yet due to various issues of mismanagement in the program from both the IAF and those making the aircraft.
If there is a product that does not do "as advertised" after 15 years since it first flew and based on all public and private reports wont do "as advertised" for another couple of years; then it would require a ton of salt to get any aviation expert besides those with nationalist or vested(foreign subcontractors, etc) motivations to call it a success.[/QUOTE]
Ibwikk
Again, this particular point I have ALREADY mentioned countless times in terms of the ancillary benefits of the program.
But, as the objective of delivering a Mig-21 replacement to the IAF within a justifiable timeframe and where its relevancy to the IAF would be beyond just a token "purchase" of a domestic product; It has failed.
The LCA program is the failure. Yes, it has had successes within that failure. But at the end, you have a jet(nothing wrong with the aerodynamics or concept of it) that has currently many shortcomings that keep it from being capable of front line service including glaring ones regarding maintenance processes.
So after a first flight in 2001 we have a jet that still has performance and manufacturing kinks to work out in its original spec which the end user doesn't really want in the first place, and the newer spec isnt to see the light of day till 2021. Well, I am very hard pressed to find ANYTHING that defines the LCA program or even the Tejas fighter(not the design or concept but as a whole product) a partial(if the complete term is too acerbic) failure.
Even the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, a fighter that for all reports, for all records was a great jet in terms of everything it did; is defined as a failure by aviation experts simply because it never sold and it never found a customer. Here is a case of a fighter that despite its promising design and concept; isnt ready yet due to various issues of mismanagement in the program from both the IAF and those making the aircraft.
If there is a product that does not do "as advertised" after 15 years since it first flew and based on all public and private reports wont do "as advertised" for another couple of years; then it would require a ton of salt to get any aviation expert besides those with nationalist or vested(foreign subcontractors, etc) motivations to call it a success.[/QUOTE]
Two things, one LCA was merely not designed to be a replacement for Tejas. It was also planned d to revive the dead Marut program which actually failed due to lack of an engine. The fighter along with the program both failed, failed to make us realise that a fighter can't be designed without an engine.
because no one would give us an engine. So we planned to design both the fighter and engine.
The LCA program was going to be a failure until the kaveri program was de linked.
So for the govt and the IAF saved the program from being a failure and here you come and say it's a failure which is your and your point only but not for MOD and IAF.
IAF on its part is a tough customer just for the fact that French allolute is now flying at a height which it was not even designed for!
They want the best bang for the buck. And that's where they are driving the jet towards.
And as for mig21 replacement it will replace the migs as a low cost replacement.
Even if it's 2021 we will have a fighter ready for IAF and we will still be ahead of many countries and we are OK with that. IAF accepted it as it is and now only looking for upgrade in that plane there is no mark 1 or mark 1a. It's only Tejas.
The delay was also due to lack of political will and with this govt pushing and doing all the right things.
The program is alive and not failed.
@Oscar sorry about the readability as I'm mobile.
But tell me if it has failed and I will show you it gas not. You will stumble upon something good which you haven't so far.[/QUOTE]
Again, this particular point I have ALREADY mentioned countless times in terms of the ancillary benefits of the program.
But, as the objective of delivering a Mig-21 replacement to the IAF within a justifiable timeframe and where its relevancy to the IAF would be beyond just a token "purchase" of a domestic product; It has failed.
The LCA program is the failure. Yes, it has had successes within that failure. But at the end, you have a jet(nothing wrong with the aerodynamics or concept of it) that has currently many shortcomings that keep it from being capable of front line service including glaring ones regarding maintenance processes.
So after a first flight in 2001 we have a jet that still has performance and manufacturing kinks to work out in its original spec which the end user doesn't really want in the first place, and the newer spec isnt to see the light of day till 2021. Well, I am very hard pressed to find ANYTHING that defines the LCA program or even the Tejas fighter(not the design or concept but as a whole product) a partial(if the complete term is too acerbic) failure.
Even the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, a fighter that for all reports, for all records was a great jet in terms of everything it did; is defined as a failure by aviation experts simply because it never sold and it never found a customer. Here is a case of a fighter that despite its promising design and concept; isnt ready yet due to various issues of mismanagement in the program from both the IAF and those making the aircraft.
If there is a product that does not do "as advertised" after 15 years since it first flew and based on all public and private reports wont do "as advertised" for another couple of years; then it would require a ton of salt to get any aviation expert besides those with nationalist or vested(foreign subcontractors, etc) motivations to call it a success.[/QUOTE]
Ibwikk
Again, this particular point I have ALREADY mentioned countless times in terms of the ancillary benefits of the program.
But, as the objective of delivering a Mig-21 replacement to the IAF within a justifiable timeframe and where its relevancy to the IAF would be beyond just a token "purchase" of a domestic product; It has failed.
The LCA program is the failure. Yes, it has had successes within that failure. But at the end, you have a jet(nothing wrong with the aerodynamics or concept of it) that has currently many shortcomings that keep it from being capable of front line service including glaring ones regarding maintenance processes.
So after a first flight in 2001 we have a jet that still has performance and manufacturing kinks to work out in its original spec which the end user doesn't really want in the first place, and the newer spec isnt to see the light of day till 2021. Well, I am very hard pressed to find ANYTHING that defines the LCA program or even the Tejas fighter(not the design or concept but as a whole product) a partial(if the complete term is too acerbic) failure.
Even the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, a fighter that for all reports, for all records was a great jet in terms of everything it did; is defined as a failure by aviation experts simply because it never sold and it never found a customer. Here is a case of a fighter that despite its promising design and concept; isnt ready yet due to various issues of mismanagement in the program from both the IAF and those making the aircraft.
If there is a product that does not do "as advertised" after 15 years since it first flew and based on all public and private reports wont do "as advertised" for another couple of years; then it would require a ton of salt to get any aviation expert besides those with nationalist or vested(foreign subcontractors, etc) motivations to call it a success.[/QUOTE]
Two things, one LCA was merely not designed to be a replacement for Tejas. It was also planned d to revive the dead Marut program which actually failed due to lack of an engine. The fighter along with the program both failed, failed to make us realise that a fighter can't be designed without an engine.
because no one would give us an engine. So we planned to design both the fighter and engine.
The LCA program was going to be a failure until the kaveri program was de linked.
So for the govt and the IAF saved the program from being a failure and here you come and say it's a failure which is your and your point only but not for MOD and IAF.
IAF on its part is a tough customer just for the fact that French allolute is now flying at a height which it was not even designed for!
They want the best bang for the buck. And that's where they are driving the jet towards.
And as for mig21 replacement it will replace the migs as a low cost replacement.
Even if it's 2021 we will have a fighter ready for IAF and we will still be ahead of many countries and we are OK with that. IAF accepted it as it is and now only looking for upgrade in that plane there is no mark 1 or mark 1a. It's only Tejas.
The delay was also due to lack of political will and with this govt pushing and doing all the right things.
The program is alive and not failed.
@Oscar sorry about the readability as I'm mobile.
