As an outsider, I would like to add some points.
No, I think the ultimate certificate is FOC not IOC, right?
FOC and IOC certify the capabilities bult into the platform during design phase. They are not a means to add to capacity.tejas mk1 itself has,
.
I think first 3 don't give you quality edge against Chinese J-11B and J-11BS, not to mention J10 (according to PLA, J10 performs far better than Su-27 in its drills as long as range is not taken into consideration). LCA MK2 is still on the paper, nobody knows how good it will be. Even it is delivered as promised, it will take at least another 10 years to mature. But you have to know, J-10B is ready now and Chinese already started the work on J-10C. So, highly likely, when LCA MK2 enters service, it will still be no match against the latest J-10 versions at the time.
Here is why Rafale comes in, it is ready and has enough edge over current J-10. And people have greater confidence on French's technical ability to keep this edge over any improvement on J-10 in near future.
1.lowest clean config RCS, with a radar dia bigger than Rafale
2.A combination of good enough Thrust to weight ratio along lowest wing loading leading to better performance in high altitude air space
3.And 4 channel all digital fly by wire relaxed Static stability airframe
among all other fighters of PLAF, PAF and IAF, not a single fighter in the combined fleet of all three airforces have this unique combination which is present in all 4.5th gen fighters like rafale ,gripen and typhoon.
In tejas mk2 the thrust to weight ratio will go closer to that of rafale,typhoon,gripen E and Mig-29.
SO in effect with in its range tejas mk2 will be comparable to rafale, typhoon,Gripen E and Mig-29(which has a combo of both high ITR and STR).
So I don't accept that J-10's performance against older Su-30 serier or SU-27 is going to make J-10 superior to tejas mk1 and mk2. because j-10 has a higher wing loading which will be a minus in high altitude himalayan theater and bigger clean config RCS(once all heavy RCS long range BVrs fired and external fuel tanks are dropped tejas will be much difficult to track by any radar than any of the present 4th or 4.5th gen fighters flying in IAF,PAF and PLAF.)
Unless you change the design of J-10 completely it wont match teajs mk2 in my opinion based on specs alone.Design of tejas mk2 is already finalized and drawings are being released for production. And it builds upon the mk1 capacity. we can be confident of mk2 specs in the same way you are confident about j-10 Cor B's ability.
p2prada does not know anything significant on aerodynamics to pronounce any meaningful opinions on these matters. Reading brochures and posting forums are no substitute for learning something about the importance of
combination of low wing loading with high thrust to weight ratio,
Relaxed Static Stability compound delta air frame coupled with 4 channel all digital fly by wire tech
high enough internal fuel fraction,
class comparable low clean config RCS,
a decent 650 mm dia ASEA radar ,
all in one tejas mk2 platform along with retractable refueling probe.
from sites dedicated to aerodynamics mentioned in many of my posts,
because it is ultimately these techs that make the strands of any modern 4.5th gen fighter's DNA.
SO how come a fighter having all these traits become inferior to any other 4.5th gen fighter in combat ?
If p2prada is right that India is looking for an offensive air force deep into Chinese air space, then we are looking at scenario completely different from 1962, or even 2014. In the future war, Indian pilots have to fight 1000kms away from their airport without ground support, which means this fighter is expected to fight independently. This is what Rafale was designed for, not LCA. If you require LCA MK2 to play that role, the workload will be equal to designing a new plane—MRCA.
range with maeningful combat load is a direct function of internal fuel fraction(weight of the internal fuel/empty weight of the fighter)
In the recent reunion island flight two rafales with nothing but two huge external fuel tanks needed 5 refuellings and took 10.5 hours to complete the 10000 km flight distance,
giving them a ferry range of just 1500 Km in hot indian ocean climatic conditions which sap 10 percent wing lift and engine thrust.If you calculate that two engines on rafale burning fuel the excess fuel in external tanks does not automatically mean twice the range of single engined tejas mk1(range for tejas mk1 at IOC-2 itself was given as 1700 Km in indian hot condition.)
So the range difference between rafale and tejas mk2 will be with in the 20 to 30 percent shortage , nothing very big. Considering we are introducing brahmos armed Su-30 MKI there are alternatives for IAF to strike at these ranges
Only India government can answer this question because this is a strategic question not tactic. As a developing country with limited budget and resource, India can't afford modernizing its military and building up its military industry at the same time and same speed. One must be prioritized over another. So, question is: which one you prefer to do first. From 1960s to 1990s, Chinese choose the latter while keeping its forces with outdated weapons for over 30 years. During this period, the only preparation to USSR attack is nuclear mines and insurgency war. In the meantime, the limited budget was focused on industry building.
Ofcourse indian govt is also responsible for the defence of indian skies with high in number 4.5th gen tech fighter fleet with out busting IAF budget, for which 300 plus tejas mk2 will do better than 120 rafales on any day. You should know that IAF is 10 squadrons shor of its required and sanctioned fighting strength of 45 squadrons.
the 20 billion dollar rafale deal will make it impossible for IAF to reach that 45 squadron level.
So, is there any india government willing to take this kind of risk? Or would India public allow its government to adopt such strategy?
, Wish MMRCA is cancelled:thumb:
