The problemsreasons for delays with Tejas as far as i understand are:
1. Shift in specifications by user ie IAF (these may be due to change in ground realities, but this is the biggest reason for delay)
2. Lack of experience of the designers in airborne radar and engine
3. US/EU embargo after nuclear tests

I would include inadequate and incompetent project management. For example appraisal and monitoring of Kaveri progress should have resulted in the project being frozen years earlier and outside expertise being sought IMO. When Tejas missed development time lines action should have been taken to investigate the reasons and measures taken to get the project back on schedule. Instead the project appeared to stagger on from missed target to missed target without anything being done to get a grip on the situation.

I hope the management of Mk2 will be better than that of Mk1.

The UK along with BAE Systems are due to enter talks with Japanese officials on joint military/civilian ventures.

Interesting but I don’t see UK government embarking on any heavy expenditure development programmes in the near future. Carrier capability was scrapped for financial reasons. Nimrod was scrapped for the same reasons. Future carrier capability is compromised for financial reasons.

No Typhoons are being scrapped by the UK, see above. There are “talks” about ordering additional F-35s to replace Tranche 1s in the future, theres a difference between “talks” and actually going through with it. Go figure it out.

Good news if Tranche 1 Typhoon capability is sufficient to warrant keeping them in service a lot longer without a big increase in operating costs (through rising maintenance costs). Might as well get the flying hours you paid for when you bought the airframe!

I am in full favour of abandoning the Tejas MK2 and buying the Gripen NG with full licensed production and maximum ToT SAAB/Sweden/Other Europeans are willing to give.

And then start the AMCA programme immediately with full assistance from SAAB & a Sanction proof French/Indian Engine.

I would be in favour of that if Tejas is judged to be fatally flawed as a fighter airframe. No amount of optimism will turn a non-agile airframe into an agile airframe.

Without ToT from a foreign manufacturer / progressing further along the technology learning curve with Tejas I don’t see how AMCA can be developed without a big risk of development stretching out for years as DRDO grapples with technology problems holding up progress. Either way my guess is that AMCA would be many years late and despite all the delay might prove to have performance shortfalls making it unacceptable to IAF, just as has happened with Tejas.

There have been reports of an indigenously developed AMCA being ready in the latter half of this decade.

Jan 2011:
“The AMCA is expected to be ready by 2016-17, senior officials told Press Trust if India.”

Aug 2011:
“$2 billion funding sought for 2 technology demonstrators and seven prototypes with first flight by 2017”
http://defencenewsofindia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/amca-fifth-generation-fighter-under.html

To be realistic, if India goes it alone it is unlikely to get a developed, working AMCA by 2025. How long did Gripen, Rafale, F-35, F-22, Eurofighter etc take to develop – and all by companies with a host of experience?

The last credible report had this to say:-

http://spsaviation.net/exclusive/?id=76&h=India-s-own-AMCA-fighter

It will be closer to MiG-29 in size than F-35.

Thanks for that. It will be interesting to see what development schedule is published.

What ASR does IAF currently have for AMCA? I have seen reports of an AMCA design weighing ~15 tonnes, another ~20 tonnes and ASR being for a ~25 tonne aircraft. 25 tonnes is not possible with proposed Kaveri, is it?

I think Swerve & Trident got it spot on.

To put it simply you walk before you run ADA/HAL didn’t follow this rule, unlike China who built and perfected making aircraft of earlier generations first India was too ambitious in going for a fourth gen aircraft from the onset

Whose idea was it to go for 4G? Not ADA/HAL, surely. Had GOI set a 3G project in motion I suppose it would have been a technology development and demonstration programme unless IAF considered the capability of the aircraft sufficient to be useful to them.

It was the insistence on developing every major component indigenously that led to the programmes current delays. Took too long with developing a native engine, took too long to de-couple LCA and the Kaveri programmes. Radar again tried to build a state of the art fighter MMR all by itself, failed miserably took too long to seek Israeli support.

I have the impression that ADA were unrealistic in their assessments of project progress and the prospects of solving the problems they encountered. I guess they were too slow to recognise that they could not succeed in solving problems to remain on schedule and, as you say, should have called in third party help far earlier.