First off all the J-10 has one big advantage over the LCA. It has a proven engine. There is nothing wrong with using a forgein engine and I´m not bashing the LCA for using the F404 engine. On the contrary I would even suggest to give a uprated an improved version to all LCAs instead of risking the Kaveri engine.

Regarding the ALH. I´m not saying it is a bad helicopter, yet the original plan called for the ALH to replace the old helicopters used for high alltitude operations. It failed to life up to that expectation. Therefore I´m critical of the LCA achieving all design goals, just as I´m always critcal about such things with any new project regardless off origin.

All metal design is not better or worse imho. However it is a proven method and today even the most modern fighters use a high percentage of metals in their airframes. When you look at parts that are subjected to vibrations or need to be flexible metall is still better then composites. And repairing metal is also easier.

Yes, they have. Spain builts the CASA transport planes and has built the CASA 101 trainer aircraft years ago. If they would have the money they could built such a fighter.

@ victor :

Yes, given the indian context even the Grippen has some of the problems I see for the LCA. The IAF needs to cover a huge territory, limited range is no good there. Surely the IAF has drawn the orignial specifications when the development started, but that is now decades ago. I mean when they draw the first needs for the IAF, the MiG-21bis was probably still a reasonable modern plane and the F-16A was new.
That fact that the indistry now can built a plane for the nations airforce, is a good step, but it can be achieved by other means. Cooperation in international programms for example give you the same level of experience.
And we do not know if the LCA is competetive on the world market without heavy help from the Indian government.

Obvously I did not meant the old planes in IAF service when I compared them to the LCA, but let us take a closer look. We can dismiss the MiG-21 as LCA is slated to replace those and would have to be considered a total failure if it would not be better then the old and tired Bisons.

Mirage2000. Well that is a harder plane. the fact that it is not upgraded, also has to do that the money is going into the LCA programm. If upgraded to M2k5 standard it would be at least comparable.

Jaguar, with the planned upgrade is still a very potent strike. It could be better in that role.

SU-30 is a clear case.

I have not enough knowledge about the MiG-27 upgrades to make a judgement about that plane.

What could replace the LCA. First we should look if the IAF really needs to replace the numbers or if it should opt for more quality instead.

Say they would upgrade the Mirage2000s they have and would purchase 150 localy assembled new builts.
Add say 100 more SU-30s.
Finally add some 100 locally assembled SU-25 or SU-39s for the CAS role.

Point defense fighters are becoming less and less increasingly important. If I would give those 350 planes the most modern weapons (stand-off weapons, ARM, etc.) rthey would probably offer more combat capability then the vanilla LCAs.

I wish we would get such heavies at DUS. Great pics

Nice pics. I just wish the weather would become much better

The HAF RF-4E can carry the AIM-9 because the german RF-4E could do this, as they are second-hand ex german examples.

Well look at what they are saying :

1. new onboard equipment

So new avionics radar, etc. That should be no problem

2. stealth characteristics

Well if he really means stealth and not just RCS reduced (then one could call the F-18E/F stealthy) it would mean a complete new airframe. It would also mean an internal weapons bay.

3. thrust vector control engines

no problem. RD-33 is availanle with TVC and new engines are in development

4. We expect to have this aircraft with a range and combat payload close to that of the Su-27/30-series fighters

That would mean either highly more efficent engines (unlikely) or more internal fuel, if they want to keep it stealthy. So it means a larger airframe then the current MiG-29.

5. ready for large scale production by 2007

if is a complete new design it would mean only 3 years for building a prototype and doing the full testing schedule. While we have no knowledge of a country funding the project.

Imho the likely answer will be nothing more then a modernised and RCS reduced MiG-29 and no completely new aircraft. A stelathy new design with internal weapons bay and more fuel would probably mean an aircraft very close the PAK-FA and that is unlikely. Abnd they could never hit the price target with such a plane.

No, I think it was done at either RR Berlin or at MTU.