So both are similar in take off capability. So the payload has little to do with take off.
pay load has nothing to do with combat effectiveness comparison.
F-22 carries far lesser pay load than Su-30 MKI.
Does that mean Su-30 MKI is superior to F-22?
Same analogy with a bit lesser magnitude difference,
Tejas mk-1 has less than half the clean config RCS of bithe Grippen C/D and NG due to the presence of rectangular boxy inlets and canards ,
it is an undeniable fact.
Tejas mk-1 will always have a significantly bigger radome dia than Grippen C/D and even Grippen NG.
Agreed that once we put Air to air missiles RCS reflection will increase.
But the difference will always remain.
In any one on one meet even Tejas mk-1 will always detect grippen NG first , lock and launch 120 plus Km (Akash mk-2 will be available for tejas mk-1)range BVR
many seconds before any grippen version manages to obtain radar lock on any tejas version.
The radar ranges may increase , missile engagement zone will increase in future. But the fact is Tejas will always launch the missile first.
Especially if any stealth external weapon pod is available for both the fighter , the significantly lower RCS of tejas will assume even more bigger importance.
SO it is not how much load you carry , but how effectively the load is delivered that matters the most.
Sir, let's be realistic and simply compare aircraft vs aircraft without any bias instead of bringing in national pride in between. In terms of raw performance, maybe. But LCA Mk1's avionics are still Mirage-2000 level. Gripen's avionics are networked, fused and integrated. There is simply no comparison there. Apart form that C is 1m longer than Mk1 and D is 2m longer than Mk1.
The avionic on Russian PAKFA looks exactly the same as that of Tejas mk-1 , Does that mean PAKFA is also having inferior avionics than Mirage-2000 which debuted in 1980s?
This networking and fusing is software job, nothing to do with aerodynamics of the platform,
Once stuff like FOC are finished ADA will deliver all kind of sensor fusion to all IAF fleet fighters whether it be Mig-29 or Tejas or PAKFA if asked.
So no serious handicap this.
Whether we fuse sensors or not , if the tejas mk-1 with a bigger radar and lower RCS detects grippen C/D or Grippen NG first , then it will fire first.
Since all IAF fighters will be sensor fused with scores of AWACS planes , Grippen's sensor fusion won't tilt the battle field.
We know for sure now that irrespective of carrying the same engines on LCA Mk1 and Gripen C, Gripen can carry 1.5 tonnes of greater load and has more usable hardpoints and the obvious access to more weapons, apart from the reliability of having it operated for nearly two decades now.
Once again compared to total lifecycle costs we can always have 30 percent more Tejas number for the same Grippen budget.
So cost wise number of tons of weapon load per million dollar spent will always be favorable for Tejas mk-1.
What we get as bonus is is these tons of weapon loads on air will be delivered by more stealthier and bigger radar plane in very effective manner.
Also you will have 30 percent more radar power and more jamming power per ton of weapon load , for the same budget courtesy higher number of tejas due to lower cost.
Also the fighter that gets fired upon first will always have to take high G turn evasive maneuvers, So most of the time those extra tons on bigger RCS and lower radar powered plane will be jettisoned will evading the long range air to air missile from a lower RCS higer radar powered plane.
That's the most irritating point. We are in 2013 and are still trying to make something the Europeans and Americans did in the 80s and 90s and the Russians did not even bother making something like it.
The most significant strategic achievement is we have achieved one of the bestclass leading RCS , STR , ITR , TWR,solutions all in a single platform , which will replace hundreds of near obsolete MIGs and Jags ,
And once K-10 is developed in decades even the 40 tejas mk-1 will with some modification to air inlet can have a significantly higher weapon load, and a TWR equal to RAFALE , alos in MLU most of the sensor fusion stealth aids and avionics along with folded fin BVRs to be developed for AMCA will all find a place in TEJAS mk-1 and MK-2 making them easily upgradable with latest 5th gen goodies.
It is a very important thing to note, onlt ADA is developing 5th gen AMCA , not SAAB.
As for Gripen NG, let's be realistic. Yes, with the new engine LCA Mk2 will be able to carry a greater assortment of electronics and radar, but Gripen NG won't be matched by the Mk2. This much is guaranteed. Mk2 won't carry as much fuel or as much payload as NG. The payload requirements for LCA Mk2 is 5 tonnes while for NG it is 7 tonnes. LCA mk2 won't have a drastic increase in fuel while Gripen NG's fuel capacity would be at least 40% more than what's on Gripen C, that's around 3.3 - 3.5 tonnes vs 2.3 tonnes. That's more fuel than what the F-16 can carry even though F-16's F-100 engine has 20% more power than F-414. So there is a small chance that our IMA architecture and sensor fusion may be a match for whatever Gripen NG carries, but NG will beat the Mk2 in terms of range, loiter time, payload and a few others. It is a 15m long aircraft after all.
Mk-2 will exceed or on par with Ng.
Why?
Because wheels are being pushed to the side fairings on fuselage ruining the lower drag design profile of grippen NG to cater to more fuel on board.
This is done as there is no other way and it is not a best aerodynamic solution.
But for MK_2 the airframe is lengthened further refining the fuselage length to Diameter ratio leaing to lesser drag airframe than NG to cater to the same 3 plus ton of fuel load.
And in the same way Tejas mk-2 will have lower RCS and higher radome dia as well.
And by the time MK_2 is delivered the sensor fusion and avionics on it will be far better than MK-1.
15 meter long fighter will have a higher empty weight ruining crucial combat TWR, STR and ITR figures as well.
So in no way we can write off mk-2 in a knee jerk manner.
The differences are quite opposite to each other on both iterations. The avionics on Gripen C is leagues ahead compared to LCA Mk1, but performance is more or less similar. The avionics on NG and Mk2 should be similar while NG surpasses LCA Mk2's performance in some very important parameters.
That's plenty for LIFT. I suppose weapons training will still be done on a Mk2 whenever it is ready.
That's really good. I mean I always supported LCA Mk1 to be given a trainer role. It is pretty much the best platform as a LIFT before the pilot moves to a 5th gen platform. Probably something the Air force will do after ADA is done with the 40 LCA MK1s. The very reason why I support joining the American T-X tender whenever it happens. We have both air force and naval trainers for LCA.
Will IN be buying the PC-7/PC-21 or wait for HTT-40?
