what has loyalty got to do with anything here ? it’s your innovations with truth that are creating the problems.

what stretching the truth ? :rolleyes:
the LCA project was funded in 3 phases, project definition, tech demonstration and fighter development. all 3 are called “funding for LCA project” colloquialy.
when GOI sanctioned 500 Cr they had no expectation that a full fledged fighter would emerge from that, they expected a final blueprint and labs to do it in, they got that.

there hasn’t even been a 3 % cost escalation let alone your mythical 300% ! 😀
that TD phase ended underbudget is mentioned by AM Rajkumar in his book, you are free to take the matter up with him, since you clearly know more than him.

the AMCA has been funded 100 Cr for the next 18 months, are you telling me GOI expects a full fledged AMCA fighter in 18 months @ 100 Cr ?

Would it be possible to point out some sources for this?
well I have the hard copy of the Indian mag which it came out in from the mid 80’s but my scanner’s broken. 😮
I can give you the name, year and issue if you want.

Could also speak for the fact that changing the design and integrating canards properly into the FCS is still a major task not to be underestimated. They certainly have other priorities. As long as the aircraft meets its requirements they are just fine. Won’t change the obvious benefits of canards vs a tail and canardless raw delta winged design.
could be, but I don’t think so. I think if integrating canards into the FBW was the problem they would have said that and not given the other reasons. they were surprisingly candid about their capability shortcomings otherwise.

As mentioned before this comparison is moot as the Su-27 was designed as a conventionally tailed aircraft. The canards were added as an afterthought and removed for the reasons stated, though they also compensate this with TVC.
the point is that the canardless and TVC engined su-35 is still every bit as maneuverable as the canarded and TVC’ed su-30mki.

Fair point and of course you know who you want to believe ;).
cheers to that !

my reply in bolded fonts.

robban and scorpion, the canard delta config was well known and a drawing of it was even provided to the press. what I said comes from the statements of program designers and leaders, they didn’t have any reason to lie that I know of. moreover now that the FBW has definitely matured they could have gone for canards in Mk2 if they needed, that they didn’t speaks of their conviction in the original configuration.
the sukhoi flanker dropped canards from MKI to su-35, kindly remember that too. 😉
at the end of the day you are free to form your personal opinions.
I know which I would rather believe.

no scorpion, it did not give any added performance for LCA’s particular design. the original LCA design did have canards and looked like the gripen. they later dropped the canards and adopted the twisted cranked delta config.
diff paths to same ends.

quad, sigh, I give up trying to educate you. :rolleyes:

quad, YES the LCA does have a serpentine intake. it’s not a particularly advertised feature of the program for obvious reasons. just because you don;t know it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 😉
get Teer to confirm it for you if you want, he should know.

as for the MMR, how does the article say anything contrary to what I did ? it just has less details than my post that’s all. they had problems with MMR’s A2G nodes and they used ELTA 2032’s signal processing backend in stead. rest is ravi sharma confusing stuff as usual.

re : delta V non-delta

Clearly that is why they did not go for the canards ? What a Joke, they took design cues from one of the best fighters available at the time the Mirage 2000.

it’s a joke alright and not for the reason you think ! 😀

the LCA design is as far different from the mirage-2000 as possible as it could be and still be a delta.
the didn’t go for canards because :
a) it added weight
b) it’s bad for RCS
c) they compensated the need for a canard with the wing design.

While not an ideal way to look at things, looking at videos of Tejas, JF 17 and F 16 on youtube will show you that the Tejas takes many seconds more than either of them to complete the turn.

ah another youtube expert !!!! what would the world (and youtube) do without you ? 😀

Performance specifications that the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has not been able to attain include sustained turn rate, speed at low altitude, angle of attack and certain weapon delivery profiles. Exactly how far off the performance is from the specification remains classified.

because of lack of power on the Mk1 ! if you remember my little post on STR, you might see that I had mentioned TWR as one of the factors for a healthy STR. it’s not because of LCA’s design, which would give aerodynamic performance nothing short of phenomenal when paired with a decently powered engine. AoA is of course a matter of opening up the envelope. also understand that current LCA performance is still limited by the G restrictions, it’s not at its full potential.

All the Eurocanards are stealthier than Tejas despite having canards.

😀 really ? and you know this, how exactly ?

yet another case of passing opinion for fact, my dear ?

2. Possibly because the F 16s are not renowned for its RCS, but neither is the LCA built with RCS reduction in mind, the MK2 doesn’t make serious changes to the design. Hence the RCS advantage will be nominal.

clearly you are unaware that LCA is designed from the start with RCS reduction in mind, while it is no F-35 or even a rafale they have taken steps to hide the compressor face from incoming radar (using serpentine intakes)

they even rejected the canards and went for the innovative wing root twist because canards adversely affected RCS.

please know a little before you speak on a subject.

3. ELTA 2032 vs APG 68 (v9) is again debatable. The Israelis wanted the ELTA radar in their Desert Falcons (Americans didn’t let them) but that may be because of preference to an indigenous radar. IIRC the MK2 will also have a Mechanical array with a planned AESA coming much later.

there is no ELTA 2032 on LCA

5. Being a delta without canards LCA will not have the STR of the Block 52. The Mirage 2000 vs F 16 case is an ideal example, Mirage has better ITR while the F 16 has better STR.

:rolleyes: would you stop saying this stupid thing again and again ? 😡
what next, you are going to convince us the sun goes around the earth by repeating it again and again ? some deltas bleed energy more quickly in a turn, others don’t. get it ?
STR has nothing to do delta wing. the delta winged mirage beat the F-16 in dogfight on a regular basis.

STR depends primarily on TWR and wing loading. check the values for LCA and then decide.