I think its best for everyone they can the LCA soon…

Rubbish. If the IAF was suffering from an excess of fast jet combat aircraft, you could make an argument for limiting production of Mark I to development and test articles, but that is far from the case.

What should or could’ve been done differently in the 1960s or 1980s makes for an interesting discussion, but is largely irrelevant to the question of what should be done now. Undoubtedly the aircraft suffers from any number of deficiencies relative to the IAF’s desired characteristics. That’s life. The IAF serves the nation, not the other way around. If they would prefer to receive no new aircraft instead, I’m sure the treasury can accommodate that.

Far more interesting in your post are the paragraphs about huge ammunition shortages in the Army, a situation which is no doubt replicated across the IAF, and which raises questions about the wisdom of investing in direct import of handfuls of gold-plated combat aircraft with unique munitions requirements when more cost-effective options that would also contribute to operational resilience available.

This huge chunk of money had been better invested in wholesale purchase of spares and a warehouse to store
Su-30 parts to bring availability up to acceptable levels

If you’re interested in bolstering the IAF’s warfighting capability, sure. But if you’re looking to feather your nest with the prestige of operating an elite unit with special training requirements and support infrastructure, additional investment in Su-30 offers very little.

The acquisition of a handful of Rafales is amongst the worst outcomes one could’ve envisioned for MMRCA, no question of that. But it’s done now, so the question is how best to proceed from here. Seems to me the answer is to wrap Su-30 production in 2018 as planned, and to cover any further delays/shortfalls in LCA and FGFA with additional Rafales.

It makes you wonder about the present system when

The SDP get 56 seats with 1,454,436 total votes taken.
and the Lib Dems take 8 with 2,399,866 total votes taken.

But the likes of the Greens take 1 with 1,154,562 total votes taken.
And UKIP take 1 with 3,875,409 total votes taken.

Actually the case of Scotland and the SNP demonstrates precisely why a geographic system of representation is (still) necessary to capture and recognise such localised sentiments. But at the same time, it’s clear that in the modern world — where many issues transcend local boundaries — non-geographic representation is needed as well. A modern democratic system designed from the ground up would indeed differ significantly from the systems that are in place in most nations today. One can debate the philosophical merits of various proposals, but the basic reason why we will not see such reform is that the presently entrenched powers and interests in the various nations would not benefit from it — they will protect their existing power and perogatives, as power everywhere always has and always will.

Well Cameron did it, lots of moans from benifit streets who were to busy eating PIZZZAAaaaaaaa to go out and vote.

Absurd but unsurprising that the UK doesn’t have compulsory voting. Democracy in the UK (or in most other places, to be fair) has never really been about allowing ordinary people to run the country, but rather manufacturing the consent necessary for the real powerbrokers to continue pursuing their narrow interests as they always have. For most nations today, democracy is simply a checkbox to be ticked to qualify as a modern state, not an ideological commitment. Same is true here — our system of compulsory voting is merely a vestige of a more idealistic and egalitarian age.

Hugely relevant to-day.

“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be re-filled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled and assistance to foreign lands curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.
People must again learn to work instead of living on public aasistance”

Attributed to Cicero 55BC

Leave it to UKIP boosters to swallow quotes of dubious provenance.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/cicero.asp

Surely one of the advantages of moving the crew out of the turret is that the turret doesn’t need to be as well protected?

Doesn’t it? J-16 is the Su-30 analogue and was itself developed from J-11. Perhaps you are thinking of another aircraft?