Which is totally flawed and I actually don’t understand why Gripen supporters always say this? It’s higher on some factors, agreed, but mainly on particular techs, or weapons. At all primary specs LCA MK2 shall be very close to Gripen NG, which is even logical, as a result of they have so many similarities in design. As for the LCA programme I have supported it at all times and I’ve no need to criticise it, IMO IAF should have ordered extra LCA even if it is less capable because its our personal fighter. But what I do not have is blind nationalism projecting it as on par with more successful designs just like the Gripen while it has not proved something.
General, the numbers of Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 within the IAF will at the least match if not exceed that of the MRCA. Even if comply with-on orders for the MRCA are to be placed, they won’t be arriving too soon. They are going to be produced only after 2020-23 or so. IAF pilots deputed at NFTC – pretty well versed with a number of varieties of aircraft, the expertise is incredible, from Mirage to MiG-21,27, 29 and even Su-30 MKI are sure once the IAF will get its fingers on the LCA, the IAF will respect the type. And that is merely for the MK1 itself, regardless of it not hitting overambitious ASRs! Not to mention the MK2 which provides significantly extra thrust.
Contemplating that ADA has finished the smart thing and kept airframe changes rather small (greater than Gripen C to NG however loads lower than Hornet to Tremendous Hornet) and not introduced new management surfaces, they need to be capable of meet the timelines set, provided they don’t run into some unforseen issue. The MMRCA contest … Read the rest