ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[A chauhan]

...canard is a majboori...

Lol! it's true see the Chinese J20 a stealth bomber with canards

 

[Chinmoy]

Su 35 sports a higher thrust engine as well as refined aerodynamics performance compared to sukhoi - 30.

having canards will further improve the performance, So why did they drop it in Su-35 was my question , which you are evading by hiding behind the above statement!!!

Refined aerodynamic performance can also be had with double delta.

SInce you have confirmed your inability about learning anything useful even after being shown a CFD on the efficiency of vortex generation by tejas double delta,

I also assume that you will similarly be "unable " to grasp the basic fact that the primary job of canards are vortex generation , whether they are employed by french masters or sweedish masters,

All programs from Europe i.e gripen, typhoon, and rafale were the successors of of the cancelled BAE fighter project which also had canard lay out , so they were all similar,

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/saab-gripen-analysis/

Formal proposals were requested in 1981, and JAS IG submitted their proposal on 1 June 1981. After evaluation of proposals, it was decided to go forward with JAS proposal. On 30 June 1982, a fixed-price proposal was signed between the FMV and IG JAS for 5 prototypes and 30 JAS-39A aircraft. Following month, name Gripen was selected for the aircraft.

On 4 March 1993, first production Gripen (JAS-39-101) made its flight, with second production aircraft delivered for service testing on 8 June 1993. It soon crashed during air display over Stockholm due to the pilot loosing control and having to eject. Following the accident, further flight testing was suspended until FCS was revised. Revisions included changes to canard deflection angles in combat mode. Testing continued on 29 December 1993.

The above underlined passage will teach you something about the limitations of canard design which is well concealed by the advocates of "canards are the next best thing in aeronautics after wright brothers"!!!!

One JAS-39A was converted from production line to serve as prototype for twin-seated trainer, JAS-39B. It features 65,5 cm fuselage stretch, and rear cockpit that is, except for lack of HUD, identical to the front one.



On 12 June 1995, SAAB and British Aerospace announced joint development of export variant. In 2001, joint venture was registered in Sweden as Gripen International.

Primary purpose of close-coupled canards is not to act as control surface, but to increase lift at high angles of attack, where aircraft relies mostly on vortices to provide lift, by strengthening vortices generated by the wing and preventing their breakdown. Size and angle of Gripen’s canards are used to achieve as good as possible separation – vertical and horizontal – between canard’s tip and wing’s lifting surface, thus allowing for maximum vortex lift during high-alpha maneuvers – improvement of lift due to the close coupled configuration could be up to 50%, when compared to lift produced by surfaces in isolation.


The underlined passage once again shows that the "primary aim of canards is vortex generation and not to act as control surface."

In the same way the primary job of double delta is also vortex generation leading to ," increased lift at high angles of attack, where aircraft relies mostly on vortices to provide lift, by strengthening vortices generated by the wing and preventing their breakdown."



But as I have seen from my previous interactions with you, you will pretend to understand nothing I posted here.

And some thing about time lines,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

"In 1979, the government began a study calling for a versatile platform capable of "JAS", standing for Jakt (air-to-air), Attack (air-to-surface), and Spaning (reconnaissance), indicating a multirole, or swingrole, fighter aircraft that can fulfill multiple roles during the same mission.[12] Several Saab designs were reviewed, the most promising being "Project 2105" (redesignated "Project 2108" and, later, "Project 2110"), recommended to the government by the Defence Materiel Administration (Försvarets Materielverk, or FMV).[12] In 1980, Industrigruppen JAS (IG JAS, "JAS Industry Group") was established as a joint venture by Saab-Scania, LM Ericsson, Svenska Radioaktiebolaget, Volvo Flygmotor andFörsvarets Fabriksverk, the industrial arm of the Swedish armed forces.[14]

The first Gripen was rolled out on 26 April 1987, marking Saab's 50th anniversary.[23] Originally planned to fly in 1987,[16] the first flight was delayed by 18 months due to issues with the flight control system. On 9 December 1988, the first prototype (serial number 39-1) took its 51-minute maiden flight with pilot Stig Holmström at the controls.[15][24] During the test programme, concern surfaced about the aircraft's avionics, specifically the fly-by-wire flight control system (FCS), and the relaxed stability design. On 2 February 1989, this issue led to the crash of the prototype during an attempted landing at Linköping; the test pilot Lars Rådeström walked away with a broken elbow. The cause of the crash was identified as pilot-induced oscillation, caused by problems with the FCS's pitch-control routine.[15][25][26]

In response to the crash Saab and US firm Calspan introduced software modifications to the aircraft. A modified Lockheed NT-33A was used to test these improvements, which allowed flight testing to resume 15 months after the accident. On 8 August 1993, production aircraft 39102 was destroyed in an accident during an aerial display in Stockholm. Test pilot Rådeström lost control of the aircraft during a roll at low altitude when the aircraft stalled, forcing him to eject. Saab later found the problem to be high amplification of the pilot's quick and significant stick command inputs. The ensuing investigation and flaw correction delayed test flying by several months, resuming in December 1993.[15]

The first order included an option for another 110, which was exercised in June 1992. Batch II consisted of 96 one-seat JAS 39As and 14 two-seat JAS 39Bs.[27][28] The JAS 39B variant is 66 cm (26 in) longer than the JAS 39A to accommodate a second seat, which also necessitated the deletion of the cannon and a reduced internal fuel capacity.[29] By April 1994, five prototypes and two series-production Gripens had been completed; but a beyond-visual-range missile (BVR) had not yet been selected.[30] A third batch was ordered in June 1997, composed of 50 upgraded single-seat JAS 39Cs and 14 JAS 39D two-seaters,[29] known as 'Turbo Gripen', with NATO compatibility for exports.[31] Batch III aircraft, delivered between 2002 and 2008, possess more powerful and updated avionics, in-flight refuelling capability via retractable probes on the aircraft's starboard side, and an on-board oxygen-generating system for longer missions.[32] In-flight refueling was tested via a specially equipped prototype (39‐4) used in successful trials with a Royal Air Force VC10 in 1998.[29]
"

WHile the testing after a couple of crippling craskes resumed only in 1993, simultaneously the order for 100 gripens were given!!! No IOC,1,2 ,3,,,,n and FOC BS that is being perpetuated on tejas!!!!

Did the sweedish airforce chief say, No we dont need this ever crashing gripen As, we only need the NATO compatible Gripen C( which was developed in 2007 )? No, Why/ because he is no fool like some of the we dont want mk1 and mk2 is what we want chanters here, he knows perfectly well that all aircrafts mature with induction and promptly an order for 100 gripens were placed in 1993 itself when testing resumes in december 1993 after resolving crash issues.

The Gripen Program was initiated in 1980.

orders fro 100 gripens given even while testing was resumed after couple of crashes,

Till 1994 no BVR was selected, that means when the order was given 15 years after program started they did not even select a BVR.

In flight refuelling capacity tested only in 1998.

SO from 1980 to 1998 it is 18 years even with 100 percent dedicated international co operation with no gaps in funding in between.

For tejas 1983 program starts, 1989 project definition over, till 1993 no funding , four year gap, By 2013 IOC 2 is achieved and it is about to complete FOC in 2016. may look like 33 years, but delete 4 years for funding gap it becomes 29 years, delete four years for sanction impact and FSED phase-2 it becomes 25 years,

SO what is the fuss on time lines, Gripen took 19 years tejas took 25 years, But for nNATO compatiablity gripen with full EW suit it took time till 2008. i.e close to the same 25 years taken by tejas, which has an external EW pod, refuelling probe and about to fire Derby BVR. and even had a successful demo of DRFM based fully internal EW suit on PV-1 recently, with naval, trainer version also up and running.

SAAB is already an established major with full international co operation, while ADA-HAL were designing their first 4.5th gen fighter.

SO dont post stuff about which you dont even have the faintest idea about.

Nice writing @ersakthivel. Going through your note, I would like to know whether Canards and Strakes serve the same purpose?

 

[Shivraj]

I feel LCA Tejas MK2 lack the thrust and service ceiling both compare the most common fighter aircraft it can be in dog fight with It can be either F-16, J17, and J10. Forget J17 as it is superior to J17 in many aspects. If you compare it against F16 or J10 they both have greater thrust and greater load carrying capacity.

 

[A chauhan]

I feel LCA Tejas MK2 lack the thrust and service ceiling both compare the most common fighter aircraft it can be in dog fight with It can be either F-16, J17, and J10. Forget J17 as it is superior to J17 in many aspects. If you compare it against F16 or J10 they both have greater thrust and greater load carrying capacity.

LCA was intended to replace MIG-21 and is better than it and even other MIGs, period. Even after belonging to the same class J-17 is a no match for it. F-16, J-10 are of a different class.

 

[Yumdoot]

Here's how the world really is constrained.

US needs aircrafts that can keep their own people safe and help them take on some really poor country. So F-22 and JSF serves their purpose. A-4s too would do the job provided they are supported by EW platforms.

Russians have no use today for a Mig-21 sized plane. They need to ensure that whatever they fly can fly for long hours and deliver a large number of missiles at the chosen point. Chinese have similar needs.

Europeans are happy with whatever they have ie. MMRCAs.

What do we Indians need? We have to contend with two main adversaries. Currently for both of them there are limits to the amount of force they can apply. So we should have something that can apply a lot of force at & upto 100 km inside enemy territory, from multiple directions. LCA fits the bill perfectly.

Tomorrow both these adversaries are going to be able to bring to bear a lot of force at our weaker points. So tomorrow our job will transmutate into one where first of all we can seal up the weak points by countering the adversaries forces. IOW, more of LCA. Simultaneously our larger planes should be able to go deeper inside enemy territory for like deliverying Brahmos variants and Nirbhay variants. It is this later consideration that will force the larger planes to get out of the daily grind of CAS or air superiority missions or shallow strikes. So again the LCA-AMCA route to development will be an absolute necessity.

Whatever way you run the scenario the LCA is indispensable. Currently LCA will typically take 2 Bombs. But we are also working on smaller bombs and guidances - G3OM, Laser guidance, IR guidances. So it is only a matter of time before LCA also begins to sport multiple strike capabilities where a single LCA will be able to strike at more than 4-6 targets.

So unless we make the Indian borders impregnable we cannot really hope to be doing much by striking deep into enemy territory.

It is something like the chinese concept of "near seas-far seas" or Russian concept of "near abroad-far abroad". People pay lip service to the concept of learning from the enemy but just under this lip service it is invariably the americanese that is being forced upon us. A strategy where only so called deep strike and air dominance is sought to be pushed as a panacea.

A very elaborate argument is then drawn up how the Pakis are just useless bums and cannot stand 2 days. And how the Chinese are the only ones we need to take care of. Why, because they would rather we focus only on the chinese. Tomorrow if the Pakis also walk into Russian arms suddenly you will be flooded with dire warnings about how things have changed and we should import more of the western stuff and how not importing amounts to being a traitor/not caring for the jawans.

This is all bull. Think.

You cannot leave the home and womanfolk exposed while you try to become Green Lantern for somebody else.

First LCA, then AMCA aur baki ki bakwasbazi baadme dekhlenge.

 

[Abhijat]

People pay lip service to the concept of learning from the enemy but just under this lip service it is invariably the americanese that is being forced upon us. A strategy where only so called deep strike and air dominance is sought to be pushed as a panacea.

Sir, is it means that we are changing our principals from deterrence or protecting our own , to first strike or pre-emptive strike ?

Regarding LCA , what I came to understand is that, it's primary requirement is meant for protecting our own air space ? and then if envelopes demand can it be put up for deep strike ?

And please elaborate further , what you meant by LCA-AMCA route? Does it only concern with , developing indigenous capacity for manufacturing of fighter aircraft's ? Or, is it some strategic consideration with the enemy we would face ?

Thank you.

 

[Shivraj]

LCA was intended to replace MIG-21 and is better than it and even other MIGs, period. Even after belonging to the same class J-17 is a no match for it. F-16, J-10 are of a different class.

I agree they are of different class but look at USA they are replacing the F-16 and F15 by F35. You cannot replace the old technology with a similar technology. We have to replace the old technology with better ones. If we are projecting our self as next super power we should have technology and equipment that match the one own by the super powers. So I feel atleast we should buy the F110 engines from GE rather than the F414.

 

[A chauhan]

I agree they are of different class but look at USA they are replacing the F-16 and F15 by F35. You cannot replace the old technology with a similar technology. We have to replace the old technology with better ones. If we are projecting our self as next super power we should have technology and equipment that match the one own by the super powers. So I feel atleast we should buy the F110 engines from GE rather than the F414.

LCA Mk II is a 4++ Gen fighter what more do you expect?

We'll be having PAK FA T-50 for heavy 5th gen class +MKIs and AMCA for medium 5th gen class + LCA which itself has low RCS, I think it's enough.

 

[Chinmoy]

I agree they are of different class but look at USA they are replacing the F-16 and F15 by F35. You cannot replace the old technology with a similar technology. We have to replace the old technology with better ones. If we are projecting our self as next super power we should have technology and equipment that match the one own by the super powers. So I feel atleast we should buy the F110 engines from GE rather than the F414.

No doubt that F110 is much better then F414 in thrust dept. But here lets have a general comparison in between F404 which is currently used in Tejas and F414 which would be used in MK2 version.
F404 general specifications:

• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)
• Maximum thrust:
• 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) military thrust
• 17,700 lbf (78.7 kN) with afterburner

F414 general specifications:

• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight
• Maximum thrust:
• 13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
• 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner

Now while upgrading from F404 to F414, there is nearly no need of much structural change in Airframe and the weight is also a mere increase of 74 kg. Now lets have a look at F110.
F110 general specifications:

• Length: 182.3 - 232.3 in (463 - 590 cm)
• Diameter: 46.5 in (118 cm)
• Dry weight: 3,920 - 4,400 lb (1,778 - 1,996 kg)
• Maximum thrust:
• F110-GE-129: 29,500 pounds
• F110-GE-132: 32,000 pounds

Now look at the dimension and weight of the engine. It would require a massive change in the whole air frame structure. And more over the thrust is also a factor. Compared to F414 its too much and may be it would exert some unwanted pressure in structure. May be these are few reasons why it is not preferred. But let's keep our fingers crossed, who knows whats there in store for tomorrow .

 

[Yumdoot]

Sir, is it means that we are changing our principals from deterrence or protecting our own , to first strike or pre-emptive strike ?

Regarding LCA , what I came to understand is that, it's primary requirement is meant for protecting our own air space ? and then if envelopes demand can it be put up for deep strike ?

And please elaborate further , what you meant by LCA-AMCA route? Does it only concern with , developing indigenous capacity for manufacturing of fighter aircraft's ? Or, is it some strategic consideration with the enemy we would face ?

Thank you.

You first have to promise me that whatever data points or arguments, you pick from here will not be used to further a "Sub Mile Hue Hain" culture. Otherwise I will come deal with you myself . India is a dharma-kshtra, dev-bhoomi and you have to accept it as such.

More seriously, I think you are in agreement with me, that LCA is an excellent defensive aircraft and also allows for excellent CAS or shallow ingress into the enemy territory. And further that it makes sense to dominate these two territories before we imagine ingress into Tibet.

AMCA will be coming in as an organic growth of whatever we have learnt in the LCA. In fact the initial prototypes of AMCA are supposed to be coming in with a lot of stuff that is being currently developed/refined for LCA Mk-2.

So why must the IAF leadership root for foreign stuff. Because, this foreign stuff has been shown to work against ancient adversaries like Libyans and Iraqis. Shown to have worked with heavy payload, high survivability, high accuracy performance at very long ranges. So IAF which rightly needs these capabilities now also 'needs' these western, expensive, twin engined, deep strike, dominance oriented aircrafts to fulfil these needs.

Needless to say not all of IAF is a useless. In fact most of it works perfectly & in fact a little to unbelievably perfectly considering the limitations. And in support of these guys a common understanding has been reached, supported by evidence from multiple countries that we should employ twin-engined fighters. I am not questioning the wisdom directly. But has any brains have been raked, has any study been done to establish this requirement as a fact.

Do you know Marut was a twin engined fighter and our national poverty, ably supported by the IAF's 'operations only' general obsession killed it. Now juxtapose that fact with a new fact - F-16IN and Gripen were invited for tests and both are single engined. Now does the IAF leadership feel any responsibility to give reasons?

Now imagine what would be different about a twin-engined fighter compared to a single engined one. Do they behave differently in the air, with or without payloads, so much so that the FBW going to be impossible to manage. Is it impossible for ADA to make a twin engined aircraft? Would not a twin engined aircraft have more volume to allow for somewhat third world science? Mirage-2000 had mutated into a twin engined Mirage-4000. Was it so difficult for IAF leadership to voice its concerns about lack of twin engines on LCA. Had these people spoken up prior to 1999 during ABV years the whole project outlines could have been changed.

Now let us see about the basic presumption itself that twin engines are better than one engine. Lets say Pakis/Chinese fly in two of their twin engined jets and we send in two of our twin engined jets. Citrus paribus, both sides have even chances.

Now imagine instead we send in 4 single engined fighters. Would it not be better that 4 of our fighters release their BVRs from two different axis, to break up the enemy formation. Subsequently we can get 2 of our single engined fighters to go into the merge while 2 stay behind just in case our first fighters are not able to kill the enemy. Or hell even have all 4 of our single engined fighters go into the merge bugging the enemy from multiple directions. What do you think happens, does the margin-of-safety in the overall mission (all 4 IAF pilots combined), improves or does it deteriorates?

Now I suppose you know that radome of the single engined LCA, can easily house a bigger radar than even the twin engined Rafale. So LCA can be made to look and target further using BVRs that weigh less than 200 kg. In WVR its going to be even worse for those challenging LCA.

Also that single engined aircrafts cost about 1/3rd the Life cycle cost of the twin engined ones (foreign to foreign comparison). The LCC comparison will skew to 1/5th if we compare Indian to Foreign (LCA to Rafale/JSF).

Now if you are familiar with the development path of F-16 you will realize that for a lot of missions, a twin engined can be replaced with a single engined, one to one basis. Mind you these conclusions were evidenced when capabilities like TVC, HMDS, AESA, HOBS-AAMs, were in the very initial stages of development and even BVRs were like prehistoric. During in those prehistoric days engineers could make - F-16XL carry 200% the payload of the F-16A up to 44% farther, with improvement in the overall aerodynamic performance. The engineers were so confident that they were willing to send F-16XL into evaluations against a twin engined rival. But that was possible because some people in America were willing to seek help from mother nature instead of salivating for money bags. Unfortunately for those Americans their country has a long tradition to killing mother nature in favour of money bags.

But that is not enough, do you know the Chinese are actually in a better position to make a F-16XL type plane than us Indians. Should the Chinese choose they will be able to do all of the above much more easily to our people than we can do to theirs. Now does that make you feel miserable? Does that make you angry against the IAF leadership.

Sir we have been fed drivel and most people have imbibed drivel because they have been emotionally blackmailed - 'get the IAF what it wants, else its traitorous'. When the reality is that IAF leadership does not care for the rank and file. They are more interested in HAL chairmanship/advisories and Norwegian ambassadorship.

Look man if we, the taxpayer Indians do not question these supposedly patriotic officers with Seva Medals (instead of bravery medals), then we will keep losing more and more of our rank and file and will be forced to hang our heads in shame that we could not protect our people and today just have to give out VCs and PVCs. Tell me as an Indian, does it make you feel confident or does it make you feel miserable to know that you have this choice to make?

We all know by now that IAF has a preference for a foreign maal. So much so that they are not above a few harmful lies to have their way. There has to be something that forces IAF leadership to behave the way they do. At least at higher levels it has to be a cultural issue. And it is. In time you will discover it for yourself. After all, remember only the IN ratings revolted against the Brits with substantial support of the IN officer cadre and the effects of those choices show even today.

 

[Yumdoot]

@Shivraj @Chinmoy , if F-110 can be considered then Al-31 variants can be tweeked to win convincingly.

F-110 is generations older compared to F-414.

Oh and @Abhijat the F-16XL housed a single F-110. Now imagine how we Indians have been duped.

 

[Shivraj]

LCA Mk II is a 4++ Gen fighter what more do you expect?

We'll be having PAK FA T-50 for heavy 5th gen class +MKIs and AMCA for medium 5th gen class + LCA which itself has low RCS, I think it's enough.

I agree with you on the characteristic of the plane and that is why I feel it should play a bigger role. since make less sense to have a plane with 4 ++ generation but cannot carry larger pay load as the thrust to weight ratio is low on the F414 compared to F110. Also no supercruise makes it less competitive to the others.

 

[Shivraj]

No doubt that F110 is much better then F414 in thrust dept. But here lets have a general comparison in between F404 which is currently used in Tejas and F414 which would be used in MK2 version.
F404 general specifications:

• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,282 lb (1,036 kg)
• Maximum thrust:
• 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) military thrust
• 17,700 lbf (78.7 kN) with afterburner

F414 general specifications:

• Length: 154 in (391 cm)
• Diameter: 35 in (89 cm)
• Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight
• Maximum thrust:
• 13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
• 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner

Now while upgrading from F404 to F414, there is nearly no need of much structural change in Airframe and the weight is also a mere increase of 74 kg. Now lets have a look at F110.
F110 general specifications:

• Length: 182.3 - 232.3 in (463 - 590 cm)
• Diameter: 46.5 in (118 cm)
• Dry weight: 3,920 - 4,400 lb (1,778 - 1,996 kg)
• Maximum thrust:
• F110-GE-129: 29,500 pounds
• F110-GE-132: 32,000 pounds

Now look at the dimension and weight of the engine. It would require a massive change in the whole air frame structure. And more over the thrust is also a factor. Compared to F414 its too much and may be it would exert some unwanted pressure in structure. May be these are few reasons why it is not preferred. But let's keep our fingers crossed, who knows whats there in store for tomorrow .

I understand F110 would require a lot of work would have to to be done but it would make the planes characteristic better than F16 and J10 not sure about aerodynamics and weapons. but it could be a selling characteristic when users compare it with Gripen, F16 and J10. Also INS6 does not have supercruise as it only available for 414-39E and F110 has super cruise too.so makes sense to use F110 or F414-39E which is meant for Gripen.

 

[Abhijat]

@Yumdoot , Sir, thank you for the elaborate reply.

One thing I needed to clarify, is the twin engine capability , sought out by IAF had something to do with multi role capability ? Like flight envelope of "twin engine aircraft" be able to support more role than single engine variant .

Also, if possible , please guide me to an article , where I can read about developmental history of F16's , so that different roles of such aircraft can be studied.

Thank you .


P.S : Is "multi role" capability possible ?

 

[kstriya]

How about a LCA with 5th generation features developed for AMCA with a home grown engine may be advanced version of Kaveri K9, this all in mk3 or 4 keep improving and make it a more potent platform. Wishful thinking ... But possible, kindly debate on future advancements..

 

[vayuu1]

How about a LCA with 5th generation features developed for AMCA with a home grown engine may be advanced version of Kaveri K9, this all in mk3 or 4 keep improving and make it a more potent platform. Wishful thinking ... But possible, kindly debate on future advancements..

I think you are talking about mark 3,heard it will be the stealthy version of tejas with k9 or k10 engine with 70% composites.

 

[kstriya]

I think you are talking about mark 3,heard it will be the stealthy version of tejas with k9 or k10 engine with 70% composites.

Yeah with more composites and planned weight reduction by Hal for Mk 1P the stealth version can be powered by the current Kaveri engine. Wr need to give this platform to the private sector to invest in and make IAF committed to order in bulk like 400 plus, just the taught will bring shivers in the mandarin folks spine.. And this will be a complete indigenous one with further upgrades possible with advancement in tech

 

[myana]

^^^^ People you are only looking at dry thrust & wet thrust of the engine that is the reason you are looking at F110 instead of F414. The correct metric you should be looking at for picking an engine should be thrust to weight ratio.

for F110 it is ~7.25-8 where as for F414 it is ~9-10.

Adding a lower TTW engine(even though it final wet thrust is way higher) will not make a plane super cruise because the Engine + Fuselage + support structures for housing & holding the same engine will increase ending up with high empty weight fighter which will not even do transonic cruise forget about super cruise

 

[blue marlin]

View attachment 5898
View attachment 5899
Can tejas these types of small diameter bombs

it looks just like the brimstone

 

[A chauhan]

I agree with you on the characteristic of the plane and that is why I feel it should play a bigger role. since make less sense to have a plane with 4 ++ generation but cannot carry larger pay load as the thrust to weight ratio is low on the F414 compared to F110. Also no supercruise makes it less competitive to the others.

I understand your concern but both our enemies doesn't have supercruising jets so why to bother that much ? as far as supercruising is concerned T-50 and AMCA will have it.