So not only HAL but ADA itself causes the damage to LCA. Indeed the performance was great to yourself instead never come to show on any Int'l soil, now do not quote those all test flies prototype attempts here. The mentioning of Boeing alone was subject to efficiency of HAL not that Boeing left India or not.
For Boeing part its the Boeing who feels that working with the Pvt company like TAML and Tata Aerospace is more comfortable than the PSU like HAL, and obviously Pvt company runs more efficiently than the state run PSUs but what is important is that development of the Indian Aerospace Industry and more and more pvt aerospace companies like Godrej Aerospace, Tata Aerospace, Reliance , Mahindra Aerospace. These companies are not small companies and the Make in India which GOI is now promoting needs pvt investment from such Giants so that India could become self reliance in Defense sector.
Leave the future assumptions like will be, going to be, could be aside. I mentioned the observation of current appearance. Wait .... what .... IAF inducted LCA... yes they were delivered to train with not to be called as operational induction.
I am only giving the realistic figures like 120 MK-1A and 40 MK-2 Naval which both IAF and INAF are comitted because the second line which HAL opened for the LCA Tejas production cost around 1250 Crore Rupees of which half is paid by IAF and IN combine and rest by HAL.
Second about the 80+ LIFT trainer due to the fact that IAF operated 200 Su30 MKI and uses its MKI for the training purpose due to its tandem seat, so using Tejas trainer where the glass cockpits of LCA tejas trainer could easily mimic the instruments and gadgets of MKI, thus Increasing the TBO life of the MKI.
Your response is not so idiotic like many Pakistani poster, so allow me to tell you the actual procedure of the production strarts with the SOP and all drawing with the HAL, which was handed in Aug 2015. So if you ask why slow production process then the answer is that its normal to have full scale production level only after 2 -2.5 years after SOP. Till then it will take some time for full scale production.
Lot of Pakistani lay stress to the operational Induction and give an example of JF-17, now the question is does the operational induction means ferry flight without any teeth like LGB, or BVR and till now the integration is going on, so in case of PAF JF-17 it is still in IOC standard. However I too feels that IAF should have ordered atleast 20 MK-1 tandem seat LIFT or trainer in 2010 - 2012.
All again as will be and other future assumptions which should have done currently but alas the ADA as you say and HAL that sabotaged this capable bird.
Now this is where lies the problem. So lets leave HAL aside and talk about the ADA.
IF you check the time line the actual funding for the LCA starts from 1993 plus 2 problem of the economical recession when there was no funds and the sanctioned period after nuclear test. Yes LCA was only meant for the Mig-21 replacement, but with the time, new challenges arrives and IAF changes its ASR several time in short the goal post was changed several time. But ADA did the wonderful job with the small budget to develop several cutting edge technology which we were lagging.
1. FBW
2. Composites
3. FADEEC
4. AESA MMR
1. For the first part its not an easy job to do that and even SAAB have to run to LM of USA after its Grippen crashes twice due to the FBW problem.
2. Composites in this field, India did have a great experience and expertise with the DRDO's NAL and even the software developed for the composite stucture design by the ADA during the development of the Tejas is now used by the companies like Boeing.
3. It was great achievement, when India though lagging Turbo fan engine tech, did aim for much heigher and gone for the FADEEC and sucessfully developed it. Most of the people thought that Kaveri project is a failure, but actually it did reached its intended goal of the thrust, but till then the change of the ASR of the IAF due to change of the requirement demanded more LRU inside the Tejas, thus the thrust requirement was increased, which was not possible without more R&D and tech like crystal blade tech. which is available with only few OEM in the world and don't share with anybody. Thus Kaveri was delinked from the LCA Tejas but Kaveri was not dumped and development still continues.
4. For the starter AESA radar, India was working in this field from 90's and got good achievement for the Ground and AEW (AWAAC) and ship based radars, and work on UTTAM radar is going on with the schedule to get ready 2024, the time when Tejas MK-2 would be mass produced.
Leaving the ground earlier is not the primary goal but the climb indeed. Rest about whatever has failed LEH, i know you have still something in IAF inventory except Tejas those would have failed at LEH.
Read
https://defence.pk/threads/round-on...han-jf17-to-go-up.419030/page-19#post-8112725
As you helped to add ADA as well so i will say it was HAL and ADA both who dragged the LCA to this stage otherwise it could have been much better like if it was TATA for example since start that i bet Boeing went for due to some reasons however, it may be another story. But calling it Indigenous, it has been discussed to depth but you wouldn't accept and i know you will again come up with same tech shares posts and self analysis for future as will be, would be, should be thing to call it indigenous. Do not compare the Rafale time period with LCA. Your comments proves that after such duration, look what came out of Rafale that you fall to purchase 36 in hurry and the rest more but in case of all those years for LCA, total disappointment came out. No need to bring china and other countries into this. It is just about India only especially as you added ADA and HAL by me.
TATA's TAML have a good experience of Composites and is building various parts of airframe of Donier and Syscosky, so tata's quality of the doors build for the Boeing airliner is better than by the HAL and time consuming to build the number of parts is also less.
The time period comparison was done to show the full angle, then how could you expect India whichout any know how of the above tech, and less knowledge of design and development of the 4 gen or even 3rd gen fighter plane to the capabilities of the OEM like Dassault or LM or Boing
My initial post was only upon observations of mine alone but i was not expecting that it could become the reason for decision of IAF to induct or not and may become an accountability call by GOI otherwise such explanation wasn't needed nor i intended. Chill out... They wouldn't act upon whatsoever i have stated. The attempt was not for criticism against criticism but observations only but i was not expecting that I may have poked someone.
No hard feeling, and it is not called critism, but a logical discussion. Feel free to quote me anytime.
The OP and all analysis were about that JFT gained much energy in short span of time proving much power and still hidden as well. Your theory posted here is all i can find on internet but i don't know whats your point here? like you want to accept that JFT done well and Tejas couldn't or kinetic energy becomes biased to help JFT but not Tejas?
First its just a airshow display, which is just for the display and for clapping by the audience, and should not be take seriously.
However the main motive of the LCA team was to show the short take off and landing capability by the LCA.
Your point is what I understand is that the JF-17 took straight to the verticle flight after it leaves the ground and LCA didn't and you doubt that LCA w/t weight to thrust ratio is not good so needs to gain speed before doing that.
So I am not so expert but try to answer you. There are few who can answer precisely
@Nilgiri
1. First looking from the angle of the angle, you cannot judge properly. Check out this video of 747 airliner doing the same stuff
If you look at this video it looks stunning, but it does not means actually 747 did fly like the rocket, because the camera angle is responsible to look as if it just rocket lift the moment it took to the sky, so if the camera of the view is from the side and not from the back or front, it could be judged better.
2. My earlier post actually shows if you gain the velocity, which JF-17 gained more than the LCA tejas if the time period of take off is taken, but if we consider the time period to gain the initial speed aks time from the release of the brake that means suppose LCA tejas took 10 second for the take off and JF-17 17 seconds, for the seven seconds JF-17 is gaining more speed though running on the airstrip, the Kinetic energy gained will be the Potential energy for both the plane, so this maneuver could be done even by a glider provided, it have some initial speed, and while doing so when the nose is lifted then the potential energy gained which will depend on the velocity and the mass of the planes and keep going for some period of time. For the Glider it could do that but don't have a engine to keep going, but for the fighter plane the max thrust is needed to do such maneuver is not during vertical nose up, but after its initial energy bleeds to keep the fighter plane going.
