LCA Tejas Mk1 & Mk1A - News and discussions

[Milspec]

How do you look at the ALSR feature that has been added recently in FOC Tejas
And which is a very useful tool for
Dog Fighting

Slow speed and rapid turns are a must for winning the Dog fight along with HMS


ALSR – An Advanced feature which will transform Tejas into Deadlier Dogfighter | Aero Journal India


Dogfighting in an F/A-18 Hornet! | SOFREP

Even Eurofighter has this capability

Tejas also has very good climb rate

I am yet to find a pilot who would sacrifice energy in a dogfight. Guess what happens when you use control surfaces to lower speed, you start losing altitude and energy as a correlated function. That's an absolutely disastrous move. most of the real-life engagements are never one-on-one. if i pull maneuver to escape chase it gives ample time for another adversary to cue me up whistling his favorite song.

 

[Milspec]

BVR combat is dependent on Radar , Jammer and How many missiles can you afford To WASTE just like the Pak-is did on 27 Feb

Tejas Radar even now is highly rated as I read on BR forum

Elta Jammer is.serving us well

Ultimately it will come down to the merge

How many missiles? that depends on how many I can carry. Also, remember Combat aircraft are flown by pilots and not accountants, they hear a solid tone for 2 second and let it off, they never hear the cha-ching of cash register while shooting anything.

Now on a WVR, most of the tech advantage is out the door, in BVR as we say Bison took down f16, so sure LCA stands a chance, but it makes me wonder why is the IAF not lining up to flood the bases withe the f16 killer, because in reality if there wasn't US related diplomatic and political baggage with the F16's, it would have fit the Indian requirement of fast, agile, scalable, upgradable, robust and proven single-engine multirole platform like a condom. (not even a glove). It's just that f16's remain the "salli" that we can flirt with but can't get.

 

[Milspec]

sir ,its always a pleasure to read your comment,it gives not only a dose of reality but also reminds the areas where we need to improve .perfect antidote which is required after reading @random radio.i distinctly remember you once said that HAL designing capabilty if utilised could have given better result.infact it was the HAL which has salvaged the mk1 interms of mk1a due to its industry experience.

waise sir dont you think it will be better than block 52 /17 fielded by our neighbor .so may be remain useful for a while . i have heard it has surpassed mig 27 in terms of load out in various configuration and people are even stipulating it to be reaching approx 4.25 tonne .where do you place it in front of jaguar.if given a choice would it not have been a better choice to replace mig 21/27/jag with tejas with more orders till we get out from this economic slowdown.it would have brought not only commonality but would have also reduced unit prices ,besides reducing the zoo.as it has demonstrated commendable a2g ability which was second to none

i know i am being greedy but what is your opinion on MWF do you think it will bring deathknell to the russina fighters (4th gen)in IAF barring su 57

here ofcourse i am assuming that south asia will have 4th gen fighters atleast for the next 30 years and obviously against china it wont be suffice by any stretch of imagination.

sir ,its always a pleasure to read your comment,it gives not only a dose of reality but also reminds the areas where we need to improve .perfect antidote which is required after reading @random radio.i distinctly remember you once said that HAL designing capabilty if utilised could have given better result.infact it was the HAL which has salvaged the mk1 interms of mk1a due to its industry experience.

(No "sir" needed )
HAL has had it's issues with "Ji Huzori" culture. It;s leadership lacked spine. Most of HAL's issues emanates from not being able to stand up for itself.

waise sir dont you think it will be better than block 52 /17 fielded by our neighbor .so may be remain useful for a while .

LCA's in operational aggressor squadron mix might be able to keep up against F16blk52, will be definitely superior to to thier CAP's in form of f7PG, Mirage3/5, Fc1 blk1-3. As an area defence fighter it will be able to mitigate risks posed by f16blk52. That doesn't mean it is better than Blk52+ though.

i have heard it has surpassed mig 27 in terms of loadout in various configuration and people are even stipulating it to be reaching approx 4.25 tonne .where do you place it in front of the jaguar.if given a choice would it not have been a better choice to replace mig 21/27/jag with tejas with more orders till we get out from this economic slowdown.it would have brought not only commonality but would have also reduced unit prices , besides reducing the zoo.as it has demonstrated commendable a2g ability which was second to none

Mig27M were super cheap, Jaguars have very long range. Both were not great aircraft choices. For the role, LCA can supplement Mig27M space, but that dedicated ground attack role doesn't exist today and that role too is being phased out. My natural choice would be to not to buy more but repurpose existing MKI's to the squadrons that operated mig27M's and Jags (Although Jags have some life left.); while use LCA's more in the Southern and eastern command for area defence cap roles.

i know i am being greedy but what is your opinion on MWF do you think it will bring deathknell to the russina fighters (4th gen)in IAF barring su 57

here ofcourse i am assuming that south asia will have 4th gen fighters atleast for the next 30 years and obviously against china it wont be suffice by any stretch of imagination.

Paper planes pose no threat to anyone, lets build it then we will see.

 

[Milspec]

Design decisions are all a balance of the intended role, constraints and desired performance.

One thing I would like to add about the initial design decision is the utilisation of Mig-21 infrastructure. IAF wanted LCA to be small so they can fit in hardened aircraft shelter (HAS) on forward airbases which were built for Migs (I couldn't find a source for it now, read it long back). ADA went all-in on it for 'smallest fighter' citing Gnat's performance during 71 war.

Thats our Gnat baggage, a foolish one btw. And time has such a cruel sense of humor, today the same IAF's backbone is the leviathan sized MKI.

lol

 

[Lolwa]

F16 Blk 52 Vs LCA MK1A

For sake of simplicity, I will keep it to F16CBlk52+ which came out in 2003. (Blk50 in 1991 but at that time 50 was C, while 52 was designated to D).
So we have f16 std airframe, with Pw229, CFT's with 1.4k Litres of fuel, apg68V9 radar, and full suite of US weaponry.
VS LCA mk1A with 2015 stopgap changes; i.e external jammer, SPJ, AESA radar and GE404IN powerplant.

Right off the bat, F16C BLK52C has better range, better payload and faster than than the LCAmk1A. Given the blk52 is almost behind mk1A by 12 years, LCA's radar should be superior in technology (can't comment on range effectiveness). So if tomorrow a LCA MK1A went up against an F16Cblk52, sure there is a good chance LCAmk1A can keep up in WVR. In BVR Ai120C5 is still going to be a huge challenge for Derby.
But if I were to equip an Airforce, I'd say there is avionics upgrade options out there which will definitely beat the LCA at the technology game within the F16blk52 platform. (Sabr, F16V. Blk80, F16IN)

F16 Blk2 vs LCA MK2
I am guessing BLK2 is a typo and you meant 52. Well MK2 doesn't exist, when it does we can talk.


Lastly, my contention is quite simple, If our 43million dollar LCA was such a prolific half-price F16 beater, guess who would be lining up with an order of 800 LCA's out there > Indian Airforce. wouldn't it?

I'm confused a bit doesn't the LCA have a small rcs compared to most fighters. Going by the construction of LCA with 70% composites people are claiming <1m2 rcs. Mate it with an el 8222 and it could pretty easily come close enough to wvr ranges of the f16 without being detected. And considering the tejas mk1a will have aesa wouldn't it detect the f16 first. The blk 52 have pesa plus LCA has an aesa and low rcs so it could easily be a tough competitor to the f16. The only reason IAF is not lining up for ordering tejas is because they want the 114 rafale/typhoon/f15 and saving money for that. The only major problem would be if the Pakistanis manage to get apg 80 upgrade sometime in the future. Which could make the leftover f16 extremely deadly in the future.
When it comes to amraam 120 . It needs to detect the tejas first . And the apg 68 has 105 km for 5m2 detection so the tejas could well be inside with its derby. It's wvr where it could actually lose to f 16 considering Pakistanis are very much experienced in using their aircraft.

 

[Milspec]

I'm confused a bit doesn't the LCA have a small rcs compared to most fighters. Going by the construction of LCA with 70% composites people are claiming <1m2 rcs. Mate it with an el 8222 and it could pretty easily come close enough to wvr ranges of the f16 without being detected. And considering the tejas mk1a will have aesa wouldn't it detect the f16 first. The blk 52 have pesa plus LCA has an aesa and low rcs so it could easily be a tough competitor to the f16. The only reason IAF is not lining up for ordering tejas is because they want the 114 rafale/typhoon/f15 and saving money for that. The only major problem would be if the Pakistanis manage to get apg 80 upgrade sometime in the future. Which could make the leftover f16 extremely deadly in the future.
When it comes to amraam 120 . It needs to detect the tejas first . And the apg 68 has 105 km for 5m2 detection so the tejas could well be inside with its derby. It's wvr where it could actually lose to f 16 considering Pakistanis are very much experienced in using their aircraft.

Composites without stealth shaping or radar-absorbent materials doesn't affect RCS.
The claim is an inherent lower radar cross-section due to its small size, similar to what happens on a mig21.

Now IAF saving money for the platforms reminds me of, "Wohi Jhaag Wohi Safeedi, jab kam paise mein mile, to koi yeh q le, woh na le - Nirma Super!"

 

[randomradio]

F16 Blk 52 Vs LCA MK1A

For sake of simplicity, I will keep it to F16CBlk52+ which came out in 2003. (Blk50 in 1991 but at that time 50 was C, while 52 was designated to D).
So we have f16 std airframe, with Pw229, CFT's with 1.4k Litres of fuel, apg68V9 radar, and full suite of US weaponry.
VS LCA mk1A with 2015 stopgap changes; i.e external jammer, SPJ, AESA radar and GE404IN powerplant.

Right off the bat, F16C BLK52C has better range, better payload and faster than than the LCAmk1A. Given the blk52 is almost behind mk1A by 12 years, LCA's radar should be superior in technology (can't comment on range effectiveness). So if tomorrow a LCA MK1A went up against an F16Cblk52, sure there is a good chance LCAmk1A can keep up in WVR. In BVR Ai120C5 is still going to be a huge challenge for Derby.
But if I were to equip an Airforce, I'd say there is avionics upgrade options out there which will definitely beat the LCA at the technology game within the F16blk52 platform. (Sabr, F16V. Blk80, F16IN)

F16 Blk2 vs LCA MK2
I am guessing BLK2 is a typo and you meant 52. Well MK2 doesn't exist, when it does we can talk.


Lastly, my contention is quite simple, If our 43million dollar LCA was such a prolific half-price F16 beater, guess who would be lining up with an order of 800 LCA's out there > Indian Airforce. wouldn't it?

In a 1v1 fight between F-16 Block 50/52 vs LCA Mk1A, the Mk1A will trump over the F-16 in BVR every time. Mk1A's advantages are the AESA radar, superior BVR (I-Derby ER, Derby is just a stopgap missile because we had some stocks of it bought for the Sea Harrier upgrade) and much lower RCS (as much as 12 times difference at the minimum). Performance differences in BVR should be more or less the same. In WVR, the Mk1A has a superior weapon with the ASRAAM and HMDS, but inferior performance, so it shouldn't get into a turning fight. The LCA only has an advantage in the first 30 seconds or so of a dog fight due to its higher instantaneous turn rate and HMDS+missile combo. If the missile doesn't do its job, then it's time to run. Only the Block 70 with the Aim-260 will be able to take the BVR advantage, while the WVR fight will see the same constraints for both aircraft.

In recce and strike missions, the F-16 takes home the cake. Superior endurance and payload makes it a far superior aircraft. LCA is only suitable for standoff strike (with Bhramos-M/Nirbhay etc), light strike and CAS. F-16 is capable of DPS along with everything else the LCA does. Plus it can escort itself.

In terms of cost, the F-16 beats the LCA even though the F-16 has a higher sticker price. Let's not forget that new build F-16s have a 12000-hour airframe life, while LCA Mk1 has 3000 hours and Mk1A should increase that to 4000 hours. If we are lucky, it may possibly be increased to 6000 hours by the time it comes in for an overhaul. So the overall LCC of the F-16 will be lower.

The LCA Mk1/Mk1A is a Mig-21 replacement, nothing more. Its minimalist design is its biggest drawback and can be fixed only on the MWF. Its primary function is air defence, as an interceptor, CAP or escort. And it will likely do CAS rather than anything else as a secondary mission. I dare say the only reason IAF is buying the 83 new jets is because they are in trouble with respect to squadron strength and it's the only available jet to replace the Mig-21.

 

[Milspec]

In a 1v1 fight between F-16 Block 50/52 vs LCA Mk1A, the Mk1A will trump over the F-16 in BVR every time. Mk1A's advantages are the AESA radar, superior BVR (I-Derby ER, Derby is just a stopgap missile because we had some stocks of it bought for the Sea Harrier upgrade) and much lower RCS (as much as 12 times difference at the minimum). Performance differences in BVR should be more or less the same. In WVR, the Mk1A has a superior weapon with the ASRAAM and HMDS, but inferior performance, so it shouldn't get into a turning fight. The LCA only has an advantage in the first 30 seconds or so of a dog fight due to its higher instantaneous turn rate and HMDS+missile combo. If the missile doesn't do its job, then it's time to run. Only the Block 70 with the Aim-260 will be able to take the BVR advantage, while the WVR fight will see the same constraints for both aircraft.

In recce and strike missions, the F-16 takes home the cake. Superior endurance and payload makes it a far superior aircraft. LCA is only suitable for standoff strike (with Bhramos-M/Nirbhay etc), light strike and CAS. F-16 is capable of DPS along with everything else the LCA does. Plus it can escort itself.

In terms of cost, the F-16 beats the LCA even though the F-16 has a higher sticker price. Let's not forget that new build F-16s have a 12000-hour airframe life, while LCA Mk1 has 3000 hours and Mk1A should increase that to 4000 hours. If we are lucky, it may possibly be increased to 6000 hours by the time it comes in for an overhaul. So the overall LCC of the F-16 will be lower.

The LCA Mk1/Mk1A is a Mig-21 replacement, nothing more. Its minimalist design is its biggest drawback and can be fixed only on the MWF. Its primary function is air defence, as an interceptor, CAP or escort. And it will likely do CAS rather than anything else as a secondary mission. I dare say the only reason IAF is buying the 83 new jets is that they are in trouble with respect to squadron strength and it's the only available jet to replace the Mig-21.

There is no disagreement here. LCA MK1A can keep up in WVR but I don't know the efficacy of the radar on LCAMk1A.
The 2052 in LCAmk1A is 100km capable radar from it's specs, and DERBY ER is a 100KM BVR missile, but lets not forget APG68V9 too is 105km radar. So it comes down to Aim120C5 vs Derby ER.

As far as ASRAAM, I don't remember it being qualified on LCAmk1A, so as of now it's Aim9x vs R73; and R73 ain't no slouch.

For standoff stuff, Brahmos M doesn't exist, neither does an Air launched Nirbhay. So it's got either KH29 or the KH35 mini Moskit.

You make an excellent point about the airframe life, that's something that completely skipped my mind.

I did write this some post, LCA CAP package as an area defence fighter might be able to keep up with aggressor F16s in the area, but that doesn't make it a comparable/better platform than the F16blk52.

 

[randomradio]

There is no disagreement here. LCA MK1A can keep up in WVR but I don't know the efficacy of the radar on LCAMk1A.
The 2052 in LCAmk1A is 100km capable radar from it's specs, and DERBY ER is a 100KM BVR missile, but lets not forget APG68V9 too is 105km radar. So it comes down to Aim120C5 vs Derby ER.

The 2052 should be able to exceed 200Km detection range in comparison to the APG-68v9's 100+Km against the same type of target. Effectively double. In fact, double is not really impressive for a modern AESA radar. So I am underestimating the 2052 here.

The I-Derby ER is 50% superior to the Aim-120D, never mind the C5. The 100Km range advertised for the I-Derby ER is not at the same altitude as the C5. At the same altitude, the Derby's range is around double that of the C5. And with a dual pulse motor, the kill speed should also be 75% to 100% greater. Plus the Derby's seeker is an AESA.

In that respect, if the JF-17 Block 3 comes with the PL-15, then even this aircraft will exceed the capabilities of the F-16 in BVR.

As far as ASRAAM, I don't remember it being qualified on LCAmk1A, so as of now it's Aim9x vs R73; and R73 ain't no slouch.

Although the R-73 is old, when it comes to Pakistan, it is still a generation ahead since the PAF doesn't operate the Aim-9X, their latest is Aim-9M. And they don't have HMDS either.

For standoff stuff, Brahmos M doesn't exist, neither does an Air launched Nirbhay. So it's got either KH29 or the KH35 mini Moskit.

You can actually expect the induction of the two cruise missiles and the LCA Mk1A to go on simultaneously though.

 

[Milspec]

The 2052 should be able to exceed 200Km detection range in comparison to the APG-68v9's 100+Km against the same type of target. Effectively double. In fact, double is not really impressive for a modern AESA radar. So I am underestimating the 2052 here.

incorrect. APG68V9's tracking range is 296KM's, while the targeting range is 105km.
Now if you are claiming 200km targetting range, that's 50KM more than F35's APG81, i.e at 1/10 of the cost and probably 1/10th of peak power.
Highly improbable imo.

The I-Derby ER is 50% superior to the Aim-120D, never mind the C5. The 100Km range advertised for the I-Derby ER is not at the same altitude as the C5. At the same altitude, the Derby's range is around double that of the C5. And with a dual pulse motor, the kill speed should also be 75% to 100% greater. Plus the Derby's seeker is an AESA.

Nopes active RF seeker. Same PD module as the Python 5.

You can actually expect the induction of the two cruise missiles and the LCA Mk1A to go on simultaneously though.

With the Indian system, your really cant expect anything until it's actually delivered.

 

[Ashwin]

For standoff stuff, Brahmos M doesn't exist, neither does an Air launched Nirbhay.

Brahmos-M/NG is scheduled to start testing from 2024. That too land version. Rudra missile variants could enter service before it.

btw, Air launched nirbhay is called LRLACM now.

 

[vikata]

so in a BVR it all boils down to who has the longer stick and better radar??
do we have any comparative evaluation of derby ER and aim 120 c5 .as far as i can see we wont be able to outrange amraam with astra also at max it can be at par(if we are really lucky).all these calculation of ours is based on the assumption that 120c7 wont be introduced by usa in subcontinent .
like it or not f16 is the real bang for the money ,the only plane (4th gen) which even rafale fear to face ,when they got f16 we chose mirage along with mig 29 but still dont have the confidence.
we should shed the inhibition and go for f16 or 15 (money is teh issue) as it is the only western fighter we can buy 114 in number apart from gripen

meanwhile we can use lca/mwf as a testing ground for developing our own weapon and getting an idea about optimum loadout and try to reach f16 level in terms of versatility with in a decade.as with desi bvr,saaw,other standoff munition we can certainly leverage this plane and exploit export potential

 

[randomradio]

incorrect. APG68V9's tracking range is 296KM's, while the targeting range is 105km.

You've got the concept totally wrong.

All radars have a particular range at which they can detect a target of a particular size.

As you can see, the detection range of a 5m2 fighter jet is 120Km. It should be about the same for the APG-68 as well.

Then there's the JF-17 Block 3.

So for the KLJ-7A, it's advertised as 170Km against a 5m2 target.

This is what they say about Rafale's RBE-2 PESA.
Serious Squall - Avionics
In air-to-air mode, the RBE2 gives a tracking range beyond 60 nautical miles against a 30-square-foot target, with detection ranges up to 75 nautical miles.

So that's 140Km detection range against a 3m2 target, which translates to 160Km against a 5m2 target. Furthermore, they say that the AESA version doubles this range, which means we are talking about a potential 320 Km against a 5m2 target, or at the very least 250-320Km.

So the 2052 being more advanced is a given, in comparison to the KLJ-7A. And we can easily consider the Israeli radar is inferior to the RBE-2AA. So expecting 200Km is pretty reasonable for the 2052. For all you know, it could even be 250Km.

The 296Km range you gave for the APG-68v9 is most likely for a destroyer, similar to what's in the Zhuk-ME brochure.

Tracking range is rarely revealed.

Now if you are claiming 200km targetting range, that's 50KM more than F35's APG81, i.e at 1/10 of the cost and probably 1/10th of peak power.
Highly improbable imo.

That same reason why all the super cheap low end smartphones today are much faster than the first iPhone. The F-35 was excellent back when it was supposed to be ready, that's 2012-14. Naturally other countries have gone past the technologies used in the F-35, including the radar.

Although the F-35's radar is bigger, I believe the latest 2052 is much more sophisticated in comparison due to the significant time lag between the two.

I most definitely do not believe the F-35's radar has 10 times the power output as other AESA radars. It's not possible due to the limitations of physics.

Nopes active RF seeker. Same PD module as the Python 5.

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/I-Derby-ER-brochure.pdf

With the Indian system, your really cant expect anything until it's actually delivered.

Shouldn't really matter. Even if it's delayed by a year or two, it still means the missiles will be inducted simultaneously along with the aircraft. Anyway, my point is the LCA Mk1A will be able to carry such heavy missiles, and it won't be just another Mig-21.

 

[randomradio]

Brahmos-M/NG is scheduled to start testing from 2024. That too land version. Rudra missile variants could enter service before it.

There won't be much of a difference between land and air launched version. The air launched version only needs a smaller booster, which can be designed from day 1.

Only Brahmos-1 had issues due to its size and weight.

Also, you got the date wrong. The current schedule is 2022 first flight and 2024 induction.

 

[screambowl]

So that's 140Km detection range against a 3m2 target, which translates to 160Km against a 5m2 target. Furthermore, they say that the AESA version doubles this range, which means we are talking about a potential 320 Km against a 5m2 target, or at the very least 250-320Km

But it mostly depends on the ammo if it can fly that far. We can detect xrays and IR sig from light years away but no AAM can fly that far

 

[Ashwin]

There won't be much of a difference between land and air launched version. The air launched version only needs a smaller booster, which can be designed from day 1.

Only Brahmos-1 had issues due to its size and weight.

Yeah right if at all adopting a land-based missile was that easy!.

Also, you got the date wrong. The current schedule is 2022 first flight and 2024 induction.

Source?

Only the feasibility study is over.

First prototype of Brahmos-NG to be ready by 2024

Will be ready with BrahMos-NG when IAF demands it: Dr S K Mishra

 

[randomradio]

so in a BVR it all boils down to who has the longer stick and better radar??

Not necessary. Tactics matter as well. As does EW. But that goes beyond the scope of the forum.

do we have any comparative evaluation of derby ER and aim 120 c5 .

Of course not.

as far as i can see we wont be able to outrange amraam with astra also at max it can be at par(if we are really lucky).all these calculation of ours is based on the assumption that 120c7 wont be introduced by usa in subcontinent .

Astra Mk1 outranges the C5, and comes close to the C7.

like it or not f16 is the real bang for the money ,the only plane (4th gen) which even rafale fear to face ,when they got f16 we chose mirage along with mig 29 but still dont have the confidence.
we should shed the inhibition and go for f16 or 15 (money is teh issue) as it is the only western fighter we can buy 114 in number apart from gripen

Both suck.

And no, Rafale has no issues facing the F-16. In fact, comparing the F-16 with Rafale is actually doing a great disservice to the Rafale. They are totally incomparable aircraft.

meanwhile we can use lca/mwf as a testing ground for developing our own weapon and getting an idea about optimum loadout and try to reach f16 level in terms of versatility with in a decade.as with desi bvr,saaw,other standoff munition we can certainly leverage this plane and exploit export potential

Matching the F-16 will be a downgrade. The MWF will surpass it comfortably. It has more internal fuel, a much greater fuel fraction, the same number of hardpoints in the same layout and more or less the same payload. The MWF is actually a pretty impressive aircraft.

But it mostly depends on the ammo if it can fly that far. We can detect xrays and IR sig from light years away but no AAM can fly that far

MICA-NG will have a range of 150Km.
Derby-ER is well above 150Km, closer to 200km.
K-77M, Aim-260 and PL-15 have a range of 200Km.
Meteor is above and beyond 200Km.
SFDR will have a range above 300Km.

 

[screambowl]

And no, Rafale has no issues facing the F-16. In fact, comparing the F-16 with Rafale is actually doing a great disservice to the Rafale. They are totally incomparable aircraft.

Mig21 and F16 are two incomparable platforms as well. Unless until there is actual engagement, it's tough to deduce. That's why I don't really much get into theories.

 

[screambowl]

MICA-NG will have a range of 150Km.
Derby-ER is well above 150Km, closer to 200km.
K-77M, Aim-260 and PL-15 have a range of 200Km.
Meteor is above and beyond 200Km.
SFDR will have a range above 300Km.

To respect the benefit of doubt, I don't think any of those missiles will actually be able to engage the target (4th and 4th+ gen) beyond 120-130 km successfully.

 

[randomradio]

Yeah right if at all adopting a land-based missile was that easy!.

Source?

Only the feasibility study is over.

First prototype of Brahmos-NG to be ready by 2024

Will be ready with BrahMos-NG when IAF demands it: Dr S K Mishra

2022 is the date given by Sudhir Mishra and I'm sticking to that for now. Feasibility studies was completed long ago.

Also the total flight testing is just 2 years.

It's not gonna take 4 years to build a prototype. Even for Brahmos-1, we first signed the contract in 1998 and started flight tests in 2001 and the first production version came out in 2004. Today, pretty much all the technologies are ready for Brahmos NG. Brahmos-1 took 3+3 years from flight testing to production. So even 2+2 years is a lot of time for existing technologies.