ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Sancho]

First claim

It's a lie to argue that IAF Insisted on HMDS Hobs combo just because gehad wS inferior.

Revised claim

R60 to R73 request by IAF on tejas was made in 2004, So it is a lie to say that because Tejas mk1 '"Failed to meet iAForiginal ASR" IAF added R73 missile.

So once again you are caught red handed, running away from your earlier claims, because your fake opinions, simply can't hold their own on facts based on knowledge! :biggrin2:

But even here you got it completely wrong!

The original ASR of 1985 required R60, which then was revised by IAF in 1997, because R60 was outdated an getting replaced in the IAF fleet.

Source: CAG report 2015


And no, LCA did not failed to meet the ASR because of the missiles, but as I explained:

In 2007, IAF confirmed that the MK1 can't meet the ASR, because of the overweight, drag and low thrust issues, which is why they suggested to develop the MK2.

Slowly for you to understand...

MK1 = low flight performance => which lead to requirement of combining HMS and MMR to R73, to counter the performance shortfall

MK2 = added thrust => which hopefully counters the performance shortfall, to meet the original ASR


And as always, inform yourself to at least get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

 

[ersakthivel]

First claim


Revised claim


So once again you are caught red handed, running away from your earlier claims, because your fake opinions, simply can't hold their own on facts based on knowledge! :biggrin2:

But even here you got it completely wrong!

The original ASR of 1985 required R60, which then was revised by IAF in 1997, because R60 was outdated an getting replaced in the IAF fleet.
And no, LCA did not failed to meet the ASR because of the missiles, but as I explained:



Slowly for you to understand...

MK1 = low flight performance => which lead to requirement of combining HMS and MMR to R73, to counter the performance shortfall

MK2 = added thrust => which hopefully counters the performance shortfall, to meet the original ASR


And as always, inform yourself to at least get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

This following report by MOD in parliament clearly details the "updated" ASR which led to FSED phase-2 in 2004.
===================================================================================
The programme of indigenous development of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) had been initiated in August"Ÿ 1983 with the Government sanction of an interim development cost of Rs 560.00 Cr. This sanction was to initiate the programme and carry out Project Definition Phase (PDP).

After completing the PDP, the report was submitted to Government and proposal to build 07 prototypes was made. The Government of India split the programme into Technical Development Phase and Operational Vehicle Development Phase. The Full Scale Engineering Development Programme Phase-I (LCA FSED Phase-I) was sanctioned in April"Ÿ1993 at a cost of Rs 2188 Cr (including the interim sanction of Rs 560 Cr given in 1983).

The scope of FSED Phase-I was to demonstrate the technologies so that a decision could be taken to build operational proto-vehicles at a later stage. LCA FSED Phase-I was completed on 31 Mar 2004. While Phase-I programme was in progress, the Government decided to concurrently go ahead with the build of operational proto vehicles.

The scope of FSED Phase-2 was to build three prototypes of operational aircrafts including a trainer and also to build the infrastructure required for producing 08 aircrafts per year and build eight Limited Series Production (LSP) aircrafts. Government sanctioned FSED Phase-II of the programme at a total cost of Rs 3301.78 Cr on 20 Nov"Ÿ2001. The Phase-II programme has been split into two phases namely, Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC). Standard of
preparation of operational aircraft was finalized in 2004 with changes in weapons, sensors and avionics to meet the IAF requirements and overcome obsolescence. (Original design was made in 1990s). This contributes to additional time and revised cost for Phase-II.

Governing body of ADA in its 41st meeting held on 22 Nov 2007 had detail review of the Programme and deliberated on achievements vis-Ã -vis objectives of LCA FSED Phase-II programme and recommended the extension of FSED Phase-II likely date of completion till 31 Dec 2012 (IOC by Dec 2010 & FOC by Dec 2012) with GE-F404-IN20 Engine and to develop & productionise the Mark 2 variant of Tejas aircraft and also recommended the constitution of Cost Revision Committee to assess additional requirement of funds. The need for extension of PDC for LCA FSED Phase-II was due to:

(a) Complexity of the system desgn and very high safety standards lead to extensive testing to ensure flight safety.

(b) Incorporating the configuration changes (for example R60 close Combat Missile (CCM) was replaced by R73E CCM which required design modifications) to keep the aircraft contemporary|

(c) Due to non-availability of indigenous "žKaveri Engine"Ÿ design changes were carried out to accommodate GE404 engine of USA.

(d) Change in the development strategy of Radar and associated changes on the aircraft.

(e) Major development activity of Avionics was undertaken in order to make aircraft contemporary, which took time but yielded results (for example, development of obsolescence free open architecture avionics system).

(f) US sanctions imposed in 1998 also led to delay in importing certain items and developing alternate equipment, since vendors identification and development to production cycle took time.

The need for revision of FSED Phase-II fund sanction was mainly due to:

(a) To neutralize the effect of inflation/delivery point cost against the sanctioned level at 2001 and the increase in manpower cost of HAL.

(b) To meet the programme management expenditure due to extended time line till Dec 2012

(c) Maintain and operate 10-15 aircraft for four years upto 2012

(d) To maintain & upgrade the design, development and test facilities upto 2012, in keeping with modern technology

(e) To complete the activities which were not costed in the original estimates.

Cost Revision Committee after careful consideration of the projections made and taking into account the increase in the cost of material, manpower, additional activities to complete the IOC & FOC, maintenance of facilities and expanded scope of the programme etc., recommended additional fund of Rs 2475.78 Cr for completing FSED Phase-II activities with PDC Dec 2012, Rs 2431.55 Cr for developing Tejas Mark 2 with alternate engine (LCA FSED Phase-III Programme) and Rs 395.65 Cr for Technology Development Programme (Total additional funds of Rs 5302.98 Cr). Recommendations of the Cost Revision Committee was accepted by Government and in November 2009, sanction was accorded for continuing Full Scale Engineering Development of LCA till Dec 2018 with an additional cost of Rs 5302.98 Cr.

LCA (Tejas) Programme is progressing satisfactorily as per schedule mutually agreed with IAF to meet their requirements.

 

[ersakthivel]

First claim


Revised claim


So once again you are caught red handed, running away from your earlier claims, because your fake opinions, simply can't hold their own on facts based on knowledge! :biggrin2:

But even here you got it completely wrong!

The original ASR of 1985 required R60, which then was revised by IAF in 1997, because R60 was outdated an getting replaced in the IAF fleet.
And no, LCA did not failed to meet the ASR because of the missiles, but as I explained:



Slowly for you to understand...

MK1 = low flight performance => which lead to requirement of combining HMS and MMR to R73, to counter the performance shortfall

MK2 = added thrust => which hopefully counters the performance shortfall, to meet the original ASR


And as always, inform yourself to at least get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

GIVE ME THE LINK FOR ORIGINAL ASR.

Is that understood?



Once again ,"give me the link to original ASR

This is the only description about "Original ASR of Tejas " , I can ever find on planet earth, by the redoubtable Air Marshal MSD WOLLEN

""The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced"

NOW TEJAS HAS A MAX SPEED OF MACH 1.6

SO how come it becomes overweight & under powered??"

Just shilling wont do,,,

 

[ersakthivel]

First claim


Revised claim


So once again you are caught red handed, running away from your earlier claims, because your fake opinions, simply can't hold their own on facts based on knowledge! :biggrin2:

But even here you got it completely wrong!

The original ASR of 1985 required R60, which then was revised by IAF in 1997, because R60 was outdated an getting replaced in the IAF fleet.

Source: CAG report 2015


And no, LCA did not failed to meet the ASR because of the missiles, but as I explained:


Slowly for you to understand...

MK1 = low flight performance => which lead to requirement of combining HMS and MMR to R73, to counter the performance shortfall

MK2 = added thrust => which hopefully counters the performance shortfall, to meet the original ASR


And as always, inform yourself to at least get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

YOu were lying repeatedly that tejas mk1 failed to meet the "ORIGINAL ASR.

Now you are posting a link which says that IAF requested changes from R 60 to R 73, which weighs 15 KG more,

since it has to be mounted on wing tip, & has to cater to the extreme supersonic launch stress , when the missile is to be launched at high speeds & high Gs,

the whole tejas wing was redesignhed in a later phase of extended FSED phase-2

& it has also necessiated ELBIT systems to develop new HMDS,

So why are you continuously misleading the forum,

by saying that IAF stuck to its original ASR, & tejas failed to meet it?

it is obvious even to a lay person from R60 to R73,

to
refuelling probe,

to,

Astra missiles,


software designed radios,

Tejas is being continuously upgraded


The only ORIGINAL ASR descrition can be had from Air Marshal MSD WOLLEN's article

which says,

"The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced"

NOW TEJAS HAS A MAX SPEED OF MACH 1.6

SO how come it becomes overweight??

it is ridiculous to call it overweight fighter,

1.Gripen E weighs close to 8 tons in empty weight for 96 KN thrust ,
What is the TWR of gripen E with half internal fuel & just two WVR missiles? It has a TWR of just 1

I am comparing tejas mk1 with in development gripen E , not the older gripen C, which too has lower TWR than tejas

SO Sweedish Airforce should call gripen E, its in development bird, over weight & under powered?

2.Tejas mk1 weighs 6.5 tons for 84 Kn thrust.Tejas mk1 has a TWR of 1.07 with half internal fuel load & just two WVR missiles.

so which fighter is over weight & under powered?

 

[ersakthivel]

First claim


Revised claim


So once again you are caught red handed, running away from your earlier claims, because your fake opinions, simply can't hold their own on facts based on knowledge! :biggrin2:

But even here you got it completely wrong!

The original ASR of 1985 required R60, which then was revised by IAF in 1997, because R60 was outdated an getting replaced in the IAF fleet.

Source: CAG report 2015


And no, LCA did not failed to meet the ASR because of the missiles, but as I explained:


Slowly for you to understand...

MK1 = low flight performance => which lead to requirement of combining HMS and MMR to R73, to counter the performance shortfall

MK2 = added thrust => which hopefully counters the performance shortfall, to meet the original ASR


And as always, inform yourself to at least get a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

"MK1 = low flight performance => which lead to requirement of combining HMS and MMR to R73, to counter the performance shortfall

MK2 = added thrust => which hopefully counters the performance shortfall, to meet the original ASR


And as always, inform yourself to at least get a basic understanding of what you are talking about."

LOL,

These are your creative writing skills,

Dont show them here.

WHERE IS THE PROOF FOR THESE BLUFF?

 

[Sancho]

YOu were lying repeatedly that tejas mk1 failed to meet the "ORIGINAL ASR.

Trying to spin it for the 3rd time, this time no HMS or missiles?

If you would just use the time you invest in making up all this stuff to inform yourself, you could get at least some knowledge on LCA and would look less desperate.

 

[ersakthivel]

Trying to spin it for the 3rd time, this time no HMS or missiles?

If you would just use the time you invest in making up all this stuff to inform yourself, you could get at least some knowledge on LCA and would look less desperate.

you were the one who keeps typing, '" TEJAS FAILED TO MEET ITS ORIGINAL ASR"

THIS ORIGINAL ASR IS NO SPACE AGE TOP SECRET IAF DOCUMENT NOW, i HOPE

ROFL,

ONCE AGAIN ,"GIVE THE LINK FOR THE SACRED ORIGINAL ASR FOR TEJAS,

The only ORIGINAL ASR description can be had from Air Marshal MSD WOLLEN's article

http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page_02.html

which says,

"The monograph was brought out at Aero India 1998. The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec. Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced"

NOW TEJAS HAS A MAX SPEED OF MACH 1.6

SO how come it becomes overweight??

it is ridiculous to call it overweight fighter,

1.Gripen E weighs close to 8 tons in empty weight for 96 KN thrust ,
What is the TWR of gripen E with half internal fuel & just two WVR missiles? It has a TWR of just 1

I am comparing tejas mk1 with in development gripen E , not the older gripen C, which too has lower TWR than tejas

SO Sweedish Airforce should call gripen E, its in development bird, over weight & under powered?

2.Tejas mk1 weighs 6.5 tons for 84 Kn thrust.Tejas mk1 has a TWR of 1.07 with half internal fuel load & just two WVR missiles.

so which fighter is over weight & under powered?

I AM GIVING LINKS TO BACK UP MY CLAIM,
http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page_02.html

that tejas is not underpowered or over weight , if we compare it original ASR, because the top speed mentioned in original ASR was mach 1.5,

now Tejas peaks at mach 1.6.

so how it is ,"underpowered,, ,, over weight???

 

[ersakthivel]

NOTE FOR THE MODS


EVERY TIME THIS GUY KEEPS POSTING THAT TEJAS HAS FAILED ITS "ORIGINAL ASR',,,,, BLAH,, BLAH,,,

I WILL REPLY WITH THE SAME STUFF,

WILL HE BE ABLE TO GIVE ANY OFFICIAL LINK FOR ORIGINAL ASR,,,,

WILL HE EVER ADMIT THAT HE IS MAKING UP STUFF HERE ALL BY HIS OWN CREATIVE WRITING SKILLS,,,,

ROFL,,,
ROFL,,,,,
ROFL,,,


LETS SEE,,,

HOPE I AM NOT GOING AGAINST FORUM RULES,,,,

 

[Enquirer]

HOPE I AM NOT GOING AGAINST FORUM RULES,,,,

After having broken all rules of logic, decency and not to mention physics, you're worried about breaking the rules of this forum?

Hazaar laashe girah ke, yeh billi chali hajj ko!!!

Just go right ahead and bore the shit out of everyone with copious misinformation and bad logic!

 

[Prashant12]

ACM Dhanoa, CAS, Indian Air force has said that the performance of the Tejas in air-to-ground weapon delivery was observed to be exceptional during Op Gaganshakti. He also said 'With active support of HAL the aircraft was found to be highly reliable during conduct of surge ops'

 

[ersakthivel]

After having broken all rules of logic, decency and not to mention physics, you're worried about breaking the rules of this forum?

Hazaar laashe girah ke, yeh billi chali hajj ko!!!

Just go right ahead and bore the shit out of everyone with copious misinformation and bad logic!

I didn't seek your opinion on ASR of Tejas.

Neither did I ask for your advice on bad logic & good logic.

I am not quoting you,



You don't hv reply my post.
Thanks

If you hv any authentic info with links on the original ASR of tejas,

You can directly post in the thread.

Again don't quote me.

Thanks, again.

Hv a nice day.

 

[ersakthivel]

i just put such baste*** on ignore list no bs from them anymore...

Whatever the issue let's not use foul words.

Starting on this line again will only lead to further brawls & MOD attention.

 

[dumdumdum]

Check out @SJha1618’s Tweet:
ACM Dhanoa, CAS, Indian Air force has said that the performance of the Tejas in air-to-ground weapon delivery was observed to be exceptional during Op Gaganshakti. He also said 'With active support of HAL the aircraft was found to be highly reliable during conduct of surge ops'

 

[WolfPack86]

First flight of the HAl Tejas Mk-1A variant is expected in 2020. And the squadron in AFS Sulur being equipped with Tejas Mk-1s will reach full strength before mid-2019 for sure.

 

[Dovah]

@darshan978 is being muted from the thread for incessant use of foul language against members even after a public warning. Please refrain from posting such content, thanks.

 

[WolfPack86]

BTW, IAF Chief, ACM Dhanoa has also said that the 'Tejas is a potent platform in ground attack as well as *air defence* role. and that 'For the air defence role, the aircraft has good AI radar capability and integration of BVR missile is in the final stage.' So there.

 

[Sancho]

you were the one who keeps typing, '" TEJAS FAILED TO MEET ITS ORIGINAL ASR"

Yes, contrary to you who keeps jumping back and forth reversing your baseless opinions, I am indeed constant in what I say.

And no that's not the ASR, but as the site itself states:

A featured article

, that shows specs that the author gave, which doesn't even fit to the specs of ADA. So you don't even fully read or understand what your own sources say.


Just as in the case of Kaveri engine, I made a post long ago, to understand the problems of MK1, the need of MK2 and how the MK1A compromise came in between:

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...-news-and-discussions.1/page-760#post-1388526

Quote:

December 01, 2007

With empirical data indicating that indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in its present form, will not be able to meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASRs), the IndianAir Force (IAF) has raised serious questions overthe future of the aircraft’s long term induction into the squadron service

Or

In a written reply in the Lok Sabha, Parrikar said...the following shortcomings have been reported in LCA Tejas Mk-I:

- Absence of Internal Jammer affecting survivability

- Aircraft performance shortfalls.

- Maintainability issues

The CAG report, that already proved you wrong on HMS and the time lines, also sums up the shortfalls too:

So IAF, a defence minister and the CAG confirmed, performance shortfalls, overweight and other problems, that caused the failure to meet the ASR and the sanctioning of LCA MK2 and therefore prove everything you "believe" to know about Tejas, to be absolutely wrong!!!

You can also take well known defence journalist and Tejas supporter Saurav Jha into account, who is reporting about this in detail for years:

No matter how often you want to deny the facts, with made up "opinions" and the lack of knowledge you continue to expose, it doesn't matter, because you simply remain to be wrong!

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes, contrary to you who keeps jumping back and forth reversing your baseless opinions, I am indeed constant in what I say.

And no that's not the ASR, but as the site itself states:
, that shows specs that the author gave, which doesn't even fit to the specs of ADA. So you don't even fully read or understand what your own sources say.


Just as in the case of Kaveri engine, I made a post long ago, to understand the problems of MK1, the need of MK2 and how the MK1A compromise came in between:

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...-news-and-discussions.1/page-760#post-1388526

Quote:


Or



The CAG report, that already proved you wrong on HMS and the time lines, also sums up the shortfalls too:

So IAF, a defence minister and the CAG confirmed, performance shortfalls, overweight and other problems, that caused the failure to meet the ASR and the sanctioning of LCA MK2 and therefore prove everything you "believe" to know about Tejas, to be absolutely wrong!!!

You can also take well known defence journalist and Tejas supporter Saurav Jha into account, who is reporting about this in detail for years:

No matter how often you want to deny the facts, with made up "opinions" and the lack of knowledge you continue to expose, it doesn't matter, because you simply remain to be wrong!

PERFORMANCE SHORTFALLS ARE THERE.

BUT THESE ARE NOT SHORTFALLS FROM ," ORIGINAL ASR ISSUED ".

GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD FIRST.

ASR FOR TEJAS WAS IS & WILL BE CONTINUOSLY UPGRADED FROM R73 IN 2004,

TO REFUELLING PROBE,

TO THE SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIOS IN 2018.

NO IAF FIGHTER EVER CARRIED INTERNAL EW SUIT INTEGRATED ASEA JAMMER.

So if you want to define it as shortfalls ,

you should PROVE quote the ,"ORIGINAL ASR has

1. software designed radios,

2.newly added ELBIT Designed HMDS R73 combo.

3.Refueling probe,

4.integrated DRFM based ASEA jammers(IAF hasn't even heard the word, DRFM based Integrated EW integrated ASEA jammers".

"

As usual you are shying away from ,"Mach 1.5 at tropoauset as top speed " spec.

And you wont open your mouth about TWR comparison of GRIPEN E,Teja mk1,

Which is ,"over weight & under powered among the two"?
ROFL

You hv the gall to dismiss ,Air Marshal MSD WOLLEN's authoritative write up decades ago as ,"article"

LOL,

All the links you posted above are known to every one here.

CAG even criticized tejas for not having ,"armor plates" like jaguar, that too was counted as short fall."



LOL

Tons of crap wash up on newspapers every month on tejas,

written by journos ,

quoting ,eggspurts & ,"unnamed official" sources.

The link you gave is just one of these.

ROFL

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes, contrary to you who keeps jumping back and forth reversing your baseless opinions, I am indeed constant in what I say.

And no that's not the ASR, but as the site itself states:
, that shows specs that the author gave, which doesn't even fit to the specs of ADA. So you don't even fully read or understand what your own sources say.


Just as in the case of Kaveri engine, I made a post long ago, to understand the problems of MK1, the need of MK2 and how the MK1A compromise came in between:

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...-news-and-discussions.1/page-760#post-1388526

Quote:


Or



The CAG report, that already proved you wrong on HMS and the time lines, also sums up the shortfalls too:

So IAF, a defence minister and the CAG confirmed, performance shortfalls, overweight and other problems, that caused the failure to meet the ASR and the sanctioning of LCA MK2 and therefore prove everything you "believe" to know about Tejas, to be absolutely wrong!!!

You can also take well known defence journalist and Tejas supporter Saurav Jha into account, who is reporting about this in detail for years:

No matter how often you want to deny the facts, with made up "opinions" and the lack of knowledge you continue to expose, it doesn't matter, because you simply remain to be wrong!

Saurav jha says 1995 ASR.

When was the project started?

Project Definition started in 1984,


Present tejas exceeds original IAF ASR in so many areas & subsystems, from


1.Open architecture bus,

2.AESA radar in mk1A,

3.DRFM baesd ASEA jamners
integrated with mayavi EW suit,

4.close to 100 KM range Astra BVR missile,

5.R73 E coupled with Elbit developed HMDS system,

6.ability to fire python & derby,

7.software defined radios

8.Refueling probe,

9. 45 minutes engine change time,

10, Sortie turn around time of 30 minute,

11. 6 sorties a day,


12.pressure refuelling, whole plane can be refuelled in a few minutes,

13.hot refuelling, which means fighter can land with weapons after a sortie, get refuelled within minutes & go back to air to take up another mission. .

14.modular engine design for easy maintenance

Etc,

First you ask experts ,

if it is possible to design 5.5 ton empty weight fighter multi role fighter(not a specialized air to air like Mig 29) ,

with 4 ton weapon load, with a single 80 KN engine,

& 500 combat radius,

Which can attain the f16 STR & MIRAGE 2000's ITR,

With India's technical capabilities of 1994.

Every kid knows ,

low wing loading ,

high wing sweep angle deltas

like mirage 2000 & tejas ,
excel at ITR, & hv a low STR.

Compared to,

High wing loading , low swept wing angle fighters

like F16 ,which excel at STR. & Hv a low ITR.

So if some one combines

,the STR of f16 & ITR of mirage 2000 in a single ASR,

he is expecting F22 level engine tech

Or

Mig29 like twin engined ,low range, low weapon load, very high TWR fighter, specially designed for air to air, due to indian tech level of 1994,

But tejas is a multi role figter, supposed to hv a 5.5 ton empty weight ,


a single 80 KN kaveri engine with an engine TWR of close to 8 ,


combine the STR of F16 & ITR of mirage 2000,

To lift 4 tons , with a combat radius of 500 km & endurance of 2 hours.

This was supposed to be achieved with indian tech level of 1994,

It is a very tall order,

Nobody knows whether such an ASR is feasible,
However taking that ASR as a baseline,

We now hv a AESA radar, tejas mk1A with higher Thrust to Weight Ratio than gripen E.

Which is no ,"Mig 21" class fighter as some guys are mischeviously repeating here.

 

[Raj Malhotra]

Does any aircraft in the world fulfill the GSQRS formulated for LCA?

The specifications for MCA were formulated after combining the best features of both F16 & Mirage 2000

But f-16 was designed as lightweight fighter with good sustained turning ability and great low level flight capability

Mirage 2000 was designed as mI'd to high level altitude fighter with slash attack ability

therefore when IAF tried to combine the features of both the fighters, physics got into the way