ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[vijay jagannathan]

Nope. New requirements have already been submitted.



More like realistic.



EF, Rafale, Mig-35 can deliver in the 2013-14 period. Gripen says they will be ready for deliveries by 2013. First flight was in 2008.

Heck Gripen managed AoAs of 100deg during tests and right now has a certified AoA of 50deg. And that's not even Gripen NG. Compare that to LCA's 24deg AoA after FOC.





I would still put my chips on the MRCA fighters simply because each one of them has been proven and ultimately fly better than the LCA any day of the week.



They will deliver and I am pretty sure about it by looking at their past history. Don't compare ADA to other companies.

You see 2014 is still not 2016. LCA Mk2 FOC is only 2016 and that's being optimistic.



So what? Have the Russians inducted MKI. No. Then where's the problem.



A squadron a year. we make 14 MKIs a year, which is a big deal. After HAL's modernization that's already happening it will only get faster with the MKI, MRCA and FGFA.



Every single MRCA fighter has a variant of what they are trying to sell already operational and flying. That's more than enough for me. I would any day place my bets on the MRCA than the LCA.

It's been disappointing.

Atta boy p2prada go boy go!

 

[vijay jagannathan]

The bulldog(ACM) looks like he wants to bite off PS's ear a la Mike Tyson. Ha! Ha!

 

[vijay jagannathan]

And an obsessed critic can never know, their prejudice mind never allow. Err ACM saying at present "LCA is no fourth generation". Is it that hard to understand he is referring at IOC stage precisely combat capability wise? But nevertheless a crtitc enjoys RANTS for obvious reasons. Poor people too obsessed to understand anything.

Take it easy brother. Rhetoric rather than RANT. Take a break. Have a kit kat. Doesn't change a thing. I am not against Tejas. Mark 1 is technological demonstartor. Mark 2 must hit skies in 12 months. Or else stop wasting Tax payers money.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

stop wasting Tax payers money.

Fine, I agree..

But what we will do when s**t happens!

Our strategy is based on two fronts independently..

 

[johnee]

Take it easy brother. Rhetoric rather than RANT. Take a break. Have a kit kat. Doesn't change a thing. I am not against Tejas. Mark 1 is technological demonstartor. Mark 2 must hit skies in 12 months. Or else stop wasting Tax payers money.

What is the bottom-line of these weapons and tools? As I understand, India being able to kick the a$$ of its enemies as and when it wants. If thats the goal, then we need to encourage the indigenous stuff. It is not a waste of tax-payer's money, it is a process that will eventually be rewarding...

 

[Rahul Singh]

No it can't. The F404 cannot power the Mayawi suit along with the AESA. Nothing you can do to upgrade Mk1 to Mk2 standards. You forget that the MK2 will have major design changes.

I did not excluded re-engining option. And talks regarding MK-2 ranges from simple design modification, re-engining, re-equipping and re-arming to scaled up LCA to canard equipped medium weight M-MRCA. Which to trust? Yes it is true that F-414 will require some design modification in engine bay and possibly in intake too. But no body says these modification can't be carried out on MK-1s during MLU.

Gripen NG does not need to undergo as comprehensive tests as happened with the LCA or Gripen. Same with Mk2.

Then why it is still not certified? Anyway same is said about MK-2 "....will not need comprehensive testing as MK-1".

Mk2's most realistic fly date is 2016. MRCA will be getting technologies by 2013, all first rate. The LCA Mk2 will get those same things in 2016, not necessary first rate since Israel has just barred sale of EL/M 2052 radar. By 2018 we will start upgrading MRCA to more modern standards while LCA Mk2 will only play catch up.

If trend is the criteria then most realistic date for MRCA also goes beyond 2015.

First rate or second rate is something depends on belief. Some say west is far far ahead of Russian technology i don't believe may be you do.

Israel did it under US pressure(only to boost their sale) but that doesn't mean they don't want to sell it. Green Pine incident is not that old. Anyway Isreal is not first and last option, MK-2 can still have modified CAPTOR. Anyway possibility of modified RBE-2, ZUKE-AE or even AN/APG-80 (something which has already been proposed by Grumman) getting abroad Mk-2 can not be ruled out.

There is a limit to what you can put in a small airframe.

Yes definitely but nevertheless small airframes have some of their own advantages. Low operating cost and quick turn around being prominent.

By the way there should also be limit on extent to which a light fighter can be compared with medium.

Jaguar is strike, LCA is point defence and interception. Huge difference. Right now I can go to war with Jaguars but I cannot do that with the LCAs until 2012.

Not exactly Jaguar is pure strike fighter and LCA is potential full L-MRCA presently flying with LDP. LCA today has everything what Jaguar has but what LCA has and will have something Jaguar can't have ever. Jaguar will become completely obsolete by time MK-1 gets FOC. It would have been more sensible (for saving tax payer's money) to buy five more MKIs than building twenty Jaguars starting 2008.

IAF has better radars.

Except MKI's Bars no fighter in IAF has better radar than LCA MMR presently.

But the NG IOC will be much more comprehensive than the LCA IOC.

Any specific reason? To me IAF's IOC standards for LCA appears more if not extraordinarily stringent. Otherwise they would have inducted MK-1 straightway in numbers just like they did with Jaguars in 80s and MKIs in 2002 which is labeled as full Multi Role fighter since 2002 despite the fact that it was always expected to achieve full capability(as per IAF ASR) only by 2010 or MK-3 stage.

I do not dispute the EW suite. My problem is inducting 2 squadrons of fighters the IAF clearly do not want. IAF wants the Mk2.

Buying more MK-1 is always better than buying more Jaguars and spending millions on upgrade. IAF was right in its decision to buy more MK-1s which they should support by buying one more squadron. LCA MK-1 is something which offers better A2G capability with the flexible upgrade option all upto 4.5++ generation L-MRCA. It is great value for money than re-engined Jaguar.

 

[SpArK]

Has the LCA really served its purpose?​

Former DRDO chief and ex-scientific advisor to defence minister VK Aatre had once said when questioned about delays in the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas' Kaveri engine project: "We are a country which has not even manufactured our own car engine; here we are trying to develop an engine for a fighter aircraft!"

The same applies to the development of LCA Tejas, the first fighter aircraft ever to be developed by India to reach initial operational clearance. The one before this was the Marut, which faced severe problems and the project had to be shelved in 1970 after the crash during a test sortie precisely 40 years ago flown by Group Captain Suranjan Das, who was killed.

LCA Tejas now has to meet the Air Staff requirement of the Indian Air Force (IAF), the final user of Tejas.

But with the background of Air Chief PV Naik's critical remarks during the granting of the initial operational clearance (IOC) to Tejas on Monday about the LCA being just a 3 or 3.5 generation aircraft when it was actually supposed to be developed as a fourth generation one, exposes IAF's dissatisfaction with LCA's development.

It raises a question: Has LCA Tejas actually served its purpose; or will it be outdated by the time it is finally cleared for combat operations with the IAF?

For one, the final operational clearance (FOC) for LCA Tejas has been delayed by two years instead of within the next three months, as expected by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists. The reason is IAF's insistence that the fighter aircraft achieve complete fourth generation aircraft status at a time when some countries are already engaged in developing a fifth generation fighter.

LCA Tejas is considered to be the lightest and the smallest fighter aircraft in the world, integrating modern design concepts and the state-of-the-art technologies like fly-by-wire flight control system, advanced digital cockpit, multi-mode radar, integrated digital avionics system, advanced composite material structures and a flat rated engine.

But the 100% indigenous element, which was the matter of pride when the project was conceived in 1983, has now come down to 60%. VK Saraswat, DRDO chief, in fact said complete indigenisation would instead end up with the per piece cost going up several times more than the present Rs180 crore apiece for LCA Tejas. He explained that trying to achieve complete indigenisation would involve cost escalations due to delays over testing, leading to the final price being well over the present price calculated with 40% foreign components for the aircraft.

So, not only has the LCA project not achieved complete indigenisation; it has not been able to deliver itself as a fourth generation fighter aircraft to satisfy the IAF top brass.



Where does that leave the LCA Tejas programme?



The plan to have an indigenously developed light combat aircraft came in the background of not-so-pleasant circumstances for the IAF.
IAF's combat force level was expected to decline sharply in the 1990s and beyond due to phasing out of the then existing ageing aircraft. In 1981, the Long Term Re-Equipment Plan (LTREP) projected a shortage of 11.4% squadrons by 1990-91 and 40% by 1994-95. The position beyond 1995 was expected to be worse.


This deficiency in combat force levels and the gap in indigenous design and development capability in the global aeronautical field was planned to be filled through the development of an advanced multi-role LCA.


That's how the LCA programme was conceived in 1983 and formally launched two years later.
The subsequent aim of the LCA, to begin with, was to replace the ageing MiG-21s, the workhorse of the IAF which have been questionably termed as the "flying coffins" due to a series of crashes over the last two decades.


M Natarajan, former director general, DRDO, had said in August 2008 "When we draw a road map, we see a medium combat aircraft, a multi-role combat aircraft with fifth generation technologies, where there can be commonality of parts with LCA in avionics or radar, and eventually, 15 years from now (2023), building an unmanned aerial combat vehicle (UACV). So, if one looks at just this spectrum of vehicles, five in number, I see a good potential to build altogether about 1,000 aircraft over a period of time. The LCA could be 400 in number for the IAF, 100 for the Navy; the trainer could be 150; the medium combat aircraft 250; and 100-150 for the UACVs."


But the teething problems with India's first almost-complete fighter aircraft are now showing with LCA Tejas now set to be tested by IAF pilots post-IOC and until the FOC is granted. There are bound to be several more correctional demands from IAF's side for DRDO scientists to meet before IAF decides that FOC be granted for the fighter aircraft to join operational duty with the force.

How long that would take, only time and IAF's needs would tell.



http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_has-the-lca-really-served-its-purpose_1493113

 

[Rahul Singh]

Take it easy brother. Rhetoric rather than RANT. Take a break. Have a kit kat. Doesn't change a thing. I am not against Tejas. Mark 1 is technological demonstartor. Mark 2 must hit skies in 12 months. Or else stop wasting Tax payers money.

It doesn't change a thing either. MK-1 is not a technology demonstrator, it is very capable and most suitable option for filling voids than upgraded Mig-21s, Mig-27s and upgraded/new Jaguars.

What is the bottom-line of these weapons and tools? As I understand, India being able to kick the a$$ of its enemies as and when it wants. If thats the goal, then we need to encourage the indigenous stuff. It is not a waste of tax-payer's money, it is a process that will eventually be rewarding...

Golden line. Thank you Johnee.

 

[ejazr]

Well LCA might have taken a lot of money and a lot of time, but keep in mind that for most of that period, India was under santions and no major power was willing to do tech transfer as well. India has to build from scratch a lot of things with the LCA. Even now our Engine program Kaveri is not up to the mark.

But there is no room for complacency. Indigeneous defence industry is a must and R&D should get a huge boost from the government. And R&D by the defence does not only result in military benefit, but can also benefit the people in general

Examples are the Internet, mobile phones and GPS technology which is used by everyone but came out of Defence research. R&D is where the government spending should increase.

 

[SATISH]

I would request Vijay Jaganathan to tell me which aircraft right now is available in the market to provide a replacement of the MiG 21s that are supposed to retire at the cost of LCA. Totally 123 orders have been informally placed.

Cost of LCA MK1 is $31 million. Can you please enlighten me how are we going to replace all the MiGs?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Well LCA might have taken a lot of money and a lot of time, but keep in mind that for most of that period, India was under santions and no major power was willing to do tech transfer as well. India has to build from scratch a lot of things with the LCA. Even now our Engine program Kaveri is not up to the mark.

Cost of LCA MK1 is $31 million. Can you please enlighten me how are we going to replace all the MiGs?

At least we don't have to relay on those MIG-21 with east-block spares..

In present we are facing a enemy which is very different from head to toe and he have a very capable indigenous industry to cope up with loses..

Depending on foreign supplier is no longer a wise decision..

Having own jet is not only matter of pride but tactical advantage..

LCA is a good platform to replace MIG-21 light fighter which are back bone of IAF..

To continue the struggle on both fronts, We need to have a Self-dependent Defense Industry, Every small step matters!


God bless INDIA!

 

[gogbot]

EF, Rafale, Mig-35 can deliver in the 2013-14 period. Gripen says they will be ready for deliveries by 2013. First flight was in 2008.

This is what i call being optimistic, no one is going to deliver anything before 2014 , no one has even made that guarantee, Boeing has been the only one to come out and say they can deliver the aircraft 18 months after contract signing. IAF will have it's first MMRCA squadron only by 2015.

So what if Gripen flew in 2008 , they did not even have a proper aircraft to send to the trials , don't act as if its all granted for them. they still have work to make the NG.

Heck Gripen managed AoAs of 100deg during tests and right now has a certified AoA of 50deg. And that's not even Gripen NG. Compare that to LCA's 24deg AoA after FOC.

Ok , i am not an expert with this stuff , i don;t wanna pretend to be.
Why is it so important that Tejas achieve such High AoA's ,
You have been fixated on this point.
If you can i would like you to indulge me once more and tell why the Tejas can't have such high AoA , Why it is so important for it to have a High AoA.
I mean sub-systems and data-links aren't those what are most important.
Does an AoA of 24 or even 28 prevent it from performing its combat operations ?

I am asking a genuine questions here so just answer or ignore , just don't give me one of your one liners.

I would still put my chips on the MRCA fighters simply because each one of them has been proven and ultimately fly better than the LCA any day of the week.

Fine you want to bet you an bet.
That does not change ground realities , that more than half the aircraft competing in the MMRCA are not ready for combat operations as of today.

by your own logic that's as good as being a dud.

They will deliver and I am pretty sure about it by looking at their past history. Don't compare ADA to other companies.

ADA is not a company , they are not trying to sell anything.
They simply make and HAL manufactures , ADA will get its funding regardless.

Its only IAF and the nation who loose out by not taking advantage.

And since you want to look , at their history's some of those companies who even out-date the current India.
Why don't you look at the kind of obstacles they had to face to set up their aviation industry ,

You see 2014 is still not 2016. LCA Mk2 FOC is only 2016 and that's being optimistic.

Well at least you can admit that MMRCA is 2014 and not today. Because even they are not ready today.

your words

What the MRCA is today the LCA

guess that's not very accurate.

MMRCA requirements have yet to be translated into a Combat aircraft by the Europeans nor the Russians

So what? Have the Russians inducted MKI. No. Then where's the problem.

My point was not that ,
But to highlight the fact that even the MMRCA aircraft are not ready as of today.

A squadron a year. we make 14 MKIs a year, which is a big deal. After HAL's modernization that's already happening it will only get faster with the MKI, MRCA and FGFA.

So what's with that confidence with HAL and Indian industry all of sudden.
It would seem as long as they are making something of foreign make , problems seem to solve them selves ?

You are being optimistic if you think HAL won't have ToT issues.
Production will start slow , and will eventually pick up but it will start slow.

Every single MRCA fighter has a variant of what they are trying to sell already operational and flying. That's more than enough for me. I would any day place my bets on the MRCA than the LCA.

Well that really depends does it not , what exactly is it your betting on.
You seem very intent on putting your money on the MMRCA, and you think IAF should do the same with all its chips
But tell me p2p what exactly do all those people win ?

Here is what someone who put their chips on the Tejas had to say on the matter.

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."

Those Words from a military officer , a branch that has also made the greatest strides towards indeginistion.
Sure you can spend the next few posts taking apart the navy.
But they supported the Tejas programme , even though they were not forced into it anyone.

So tell me should the rear-admiral just put all his money on the N-MMRCA as well ?
They did not have to spend a single rupee on the Tejas programme , why did they invest several hundred cores.

They have much more capable Mig-29's and N-MMRCA . do they not ?

 

[Pintu]

Regards

 

[chex3009]

Sustained Turn-Rate Not Possible, AoA Needs Improvement....Chief Talks About Low-End LCA Needing Full Compliance!

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2011/01/chief-says-low-end-lca-will-come-to.html

 

[p2prada]

I did not excluded re-engining option. And talks regarding MK-2 ranges from simple design modification, re-engining, re-equipping and re-arming to scaled up LCA to canard equipped medium weight M-MRCA. Which to trust? Yes it is true that F-414 will require some design modification in engine bay and possibly in intake too. But no body says these modification can't be carried out on MK-1s during MLU.

The nose, intakes and wing will be redesigned or will see design changes. Simple design modifications will not increase LCAs weight by 1 ton as required by IAF.

Then why it is still not certified? Anyway same is said about MK-2 "....will not need comprehensive testing as MK-1".

Saab finishes first flight of Gripen in 1988 inducts it by 1996. By 2008 they have a Gripen NG (Mk2 equivalent) flying. Saab has a major history of flight development and are partners of Boeing and Airbus and also a part of the Neuron Project. So, after 2 years of flight testing Gripen NG has not yet been certified to fly operationally. Gripen says they will meet all sections of IAF's ASR and will deliver in 2013.

Now ADA has not even finished development of LCA. They will embark on LCA Mk2 in 2012, fly it by 2014 and induct it by 2016. What a joke. What Saab's taken years ADA will do in 4 years. Now that's realistic.

If trend is the criteria then most realistic date for MRCA also goes beyond 2015.

Not for Mig-35, SH, Viper and Gripen. Not for Rafale as well. EF is backlogged only because of ground strike requirements. A Captor M initially and a jump to Captor E from the second squadron onwards is acceptable to me. AESA is over hyped actually.

First rate or second rate is something depends on belief. Some say west is far far ahead of Russian technology i don't believe may be you do.

In certain parameters like Engines. The west is far ahead.

Israel did it under US pressure(only to boost their sale) but that doesn't mean they don't want to sell it. Green Pine incident is not that old. Anyway Isreal is not first and last option, MK-2 can still have modified CAPTOR. Anyway possibility of modified RBE-2, ZUKE-AE or even AN/APG-80 (something which has already been proposed by Grumman) getting abroad Mk-2 can not be ruled out.

Well, that's disappointing. They want the Kaveri on the LCA by then along with indigenous radar. Not a foreign made radar. Let's see what happens.

Yes definitely but nevertheless small airframes have some of their own advantages. Low operating cost and quick turn around being prominent.

Then buy Gripen. It is a more established platform.

By the way there should also be limit on extent to which a light fighter can be compared with medium.

Then we shouldn't compare at all.

Not exactly Jaguar is pure strike fighter and LCA is potential full L-MRCA presently flying with LDP. LCA today has everything what Jaguar has but what LCA has and will have something Jaguar can't have ever. Jaguar will become completely obsolete by time MK-1 gets FOC. It would have been more sensible (for saving tax payer's money) to buy five more MKIs than building twenty Jaguars starting 2008.

Wrong. Jaguars are very important for us. We currently don't have a major replacement plan or manufacturing capability to replace everything we have. We have to upgrade our older birds for having decent preparedness in case some one attacks tomorrow. The Mk1 is still an untested platform and I would rather have 20 Jaguars than 5 MKIs. So, the IAF is making the best decisions. This is the same as the T-72 upgrades. Some criticize it because of Arjun. But the fact is we cannot replace the T-72 because of the infrastructure and training that is already in place. Replacing those is impossible with a $32Billion budget.

Except MKI's Bars no fighter in IAF has better radar than LCA MMR presently.

LCA will not be seeing the enemy anyway. So, makes no difference. Mirage-2000 and Mig-29Smt will both have superior radars by then.

Any specific reason?

The NG is coming out of a platform that has an equipped EW suite, BVR along with modern navigation and communication. It is being developed from a completely mature platform similar to Viper, SH or Mig-35. They just have to make NG fly better than the Gripen, that's it. LCA has much more in its development cycle to do the same.

To me IAF's IOC standards for LCA appears more if not extraordinarily stringent.

Barely. IAF has asked for Pass marks. LCA cannot even perform to the standards of M2000 while Gripen can beat every single MRCA fighter including the F-15 in a dog fight. So, while LCA scored 35% Gripen scored 90% doing the same.

Buying more MK-1 is always better than buying more Jaguars and spending millions on upgrade. IAF was right in its decision to buy more MK-1s which they should support by buying one more squadron. LCA MK-1 is something which offers better A2G capability with the flexible upgrade option all upto 4.5++ generation L-MRCA. It is great value for money than re-engined Jaguar.

Fact is I can take Jaguar into enemy territory while the Mk1 cannot even fight off SAMs.

 

[maomao]

Regards

WOW Amazing Video!!

Loved it!

 

[Rahul Singh]

The nose, intakes and wing will be redesigned or will see design changes. Simple design modifications will not increase LCAs weight by 1 ton as required by IAF.

These are still talk nothing is known for sure about MK-2 other than new engine and AESA MMR. Design optimization is sure thing but by how much, will it be radical, the question still don't have any official answer. Regardless, my point was MK-1 MLU = MK-2 and untill and unless MK-2 means new aircraft i would stick to my belief that it is every bit possible........ Lot of possibilities, lot of options its better we wait least till AI 11.

By the way there are lot of things which will add to empty weight, F-414 INS6 and AESA MMR are two known.

Now ADA has not even finished development of LCA. They will embark on LCA Mk2 in 2012, fly it by 2014 and induct it by 2016. What a joke. What Saab's taken years ADA will do in 4 years. Now that's realistic.

Now that's the problem of jingo's assumptions which can go wild and here in fact is one "LCA MK-2 = M-MRCA Tejas". We don't know for sure if IAF and ADA have any plan to develop a M-MRCA out of MK-2 program, do we? What if Mk-2 is just refined(airframe wise), re-equipped and re-engined version of MK-1 Tejas? At least timeline says it is exactly the case.

What's the point in developing a M-MRCA ignoring requirement for L-MRCA especially when IAF is already in process of buying M-MRCAs?

Well, that's disappointing. They want the Kaveri on the LCA by then along with indigenous radar. Not a foreign made radar. Let's see what happens.

As far as i know Kaveri engine and fully indigenous MMR requirement is for AMCA not LCA MK-2. Either way nothing disappointing here. T/R module for X Band AESA is not developed in days it requires lot of time and twice more investment. Seeing small time frame LRDE was wise enough to go for hybrid AESA comprising rest of MMR with sourced T/R panel and processor.

Then buy Gripen. It is a more established platform.

Why Gripen, when in two years MK-1 will be quite capable workhorse allowing H-MRCAs and M-MRCAs(upgraded Mig-29s and Mirage-2000-9) to concentrate on their required role, all at considerably lower price than C/D? And by 2016 MK-2 will take that role and help newer M-MRCAs and MKIs.

Then we shouldn't compare at all.

Especially not combat payload and range wise. Size matters. Big is good somewhere, small is good somewhere both are not equally good everywhere.

Wrong. Jaguars are very important for us. We currently don't have a major replacement plan or manufacturing capability to replace everything we have. We have to upgrade our older birds for having decent preparedness in case some one attacks tomorrow. The Mk1 is still an untested platform and I would rather have 20 Jaguars than 5 MKIs. So, the IAF is making the best decisions. This is the same as the T-72 upgrades. Some criticize it because of Arjun. But the fact is we cannot replace the T-72 because of the infrastructure and training that is already in place. Replacing those is impossible with a $32Billion budget.

By this logic we should never buy any new at all and keep upgrading only.

Jaguars will become completely obsolete by time Mk-1 gets FOC. Jaguar doesn't offer any advantage when compared to MK-1. Re-engining Jaguar during up gradation is something IAF should drop and should also say no to new Jaguars. What to do with that infrastructure which adds relatively no value to combat capability?

LCA will not be seeing the enemy anyway. So, makes no difference. Mirage-2000 and Mig-29Smt will both have superior radars by then.

Any specific reason? I don't think IAF will buy 38 fighters just for nothing.......... "Will Have" Well, it also applies to LCA.

Barely. IAF has asked for Pass marks. LCA cannot even perform to the standards of M2000

Mirage 2000 is a medium weight fighter and LCA is a light weight fighter. There are differences and there should be.

while Gripen can beat every single MRCA fighter including the F-15 in a dog fight. So, while LCA scored 35% Gripen scored 90% doing the same.

Can't buy. Gripen can't outperform TVC equipped and HMDS + R-73 E integrated Mig-35 in dog fight.

Fact is I can take Jaguar into enemy territory while the Mk1 cannot even fight off SAMs.

True but only till dec 2012. After that 'always requiring air support Jagaur' will become obsolete in IAF regardless of latest example being only 2-3 years old.