This is from Brazil
Do note that Gripen NG has one full tonne more internal fuel than LCA.
This is from Saab.
Gripen for Brazil - The Fighter
So, yeah, it has 40% more range than LCA Mk1.
And this is what the Swiss think.
Do you see the Gripen beaten by the Rafale in every category? Or should I explain how the graph works?
Next,
Do note the points given to Rafale for endurance compared to Gripen NG, when NG is said to carry ~3.5 tonnes of fuel internally in comparison to LCA's 2.4 tonnes.
Rafale shatters Gripen in every parameters there is. And also make note that Gripen is superior to LCA. Why Gripen is superior, we can come to that much later.
Go through this link
Rafale News: Switzerland, Evaluation report quick analysis it explains why Rafale shouldn't be compared to even a low end medium combat aircraft like Gripen NG, let alone the LCA.
And what makes you say this? [sarcasm]I am sure your extensive experience in IAF has helped you to come to this conclusion.[/sarcasm]
Deep Penetration Strike is a very important requirement for any "serious" air force. It's not going to change ever. Google Prompt Global Strike program and figure out why the USAF wants a global capability to launch a precision strike.
And modern aircraft are expected to comply with requirements that take care of all present and future threats.
Oh, we can already conclude? So easy to type the words. Now, where is the experimental data to conclude this assessment? Oh, wait, LCA Mk2 is still in the design stage. Forget about concluding anything, the aircraft isn't even flying to conclude whether the program itself will succeed.
Let's begin by concluding when it will fly first before we can conclude it will achieve Rafale parameters that were achieved in 2006.
Oh, and what if the enemy already has two AK-47s, let alone 200? Everything above LCA's weight category is better than LCA.
No, just adding an AESA radar doesn't make the aircraft any more deadly if it doesn't have the same type of weapons systems to bear, even after we remove performance from the picture which is sadly not in LCA's favor.
Oh, great. Bring in preconceived notions into something you understand little about, that when Tejas is yet to demonstrate a speed above mach 1.4 with afterburners.
Anyway here's a source.
Expecting LCA to be anywhere near Gripen is an uninformed opinion.
Oh, yes. Your extensive experience in the aerospace industry has also helped you conclude that ToT is a lie. Never mind the fact that we are making Su-30s in India with said ToT.
Do you even know or understand why we need ToT?
ToT is an extremely important aspect of producing aircraft in the country. Without ToT there would have been no aerospace industry to begin with. After Saturn designed the AL-31 engine for the MKI, they transferred technology to HAL for its manufacture. After NAL designed the composites required for LCA, they were the ones who transferred technology for its manufacture to HAL. Without the transfer of either technologies, HAL wouldn't be able to manufacture any of these.
Aircraft are expected to be in use for at least 4 decades, so this ToT comes in use when you want to maintain the aircraft over such a long period. If during a ground strike mission, the LCA lands back with bullet holes in its body, it is this ToT that helps in fixing the holes and send the aircraft back in the air. Without ToT, the aircraft will have to be sent back to the OEM (NAL in this case), just to fix it.
If LCA's engine has holes in it tomorrow, the engine will have to be flown back to the US for repairs. Expect that engine to come back only after half a year. OTOH, the M88-4E can be fixed on the field very quickly because of the ToT from Snecma.
How long have you been following the LCA program? For me it's been 15 years. When LCA started flying, we all expected the aircraft to be inducted within half a decade. We have been waiting for so long that the people I was watching it with have retired and some have died. Some of their grandkids are now working in the ADA. And through all this time, LCA is yet to be inducted.
So what give you the confidence that Mk2 will "easily" achieve FOC? Heck, the program directors who started with LCA are now retired or dead.
And wow, 9 squadrons of Mk2? You sure live in a very carefree world. Let's have IAF and IN order their first Mk2 squadron to begin with, before we fantasize about the actual number of orders. If MoD increases squadron strength, then why not, we can order squadrons in the double digits and production can go on until 2050. We can even dream of selling thousands to other countries like in the case of the Mig-21 and F-16.
This is one point I agree with, albeit partly. LCA will be cheap, but as cheap as it is, it is also going to be equally less capable compared to Rafale.
But $10 Billion is too expensive for 10 squadrons of LCA, or are you suggesting Rafale will cost $40 Billion for 10 squadrons? Sure, you can live in your fantasy, but at least keep it consistent.
And just throwing money at AMCA is not going to result in anything. ADA has asked for $2-2.5 Billion for AMCA and GTRE has asked for $2 Billion for a new engine. So, money will be disbursed once ADA has progressed well sufficiently in the LCA program. I don't know what's the benchmark for AMCA to start, but it looks like since Mk2 has only finished half of its design stage, funds will be allocated once ADA has chosen an engine for AMCA and the preliminary design stage begins. Without an engine, it is pointless to start AMCA.
