So please stop misdirecting public with statements like,
"Maybe because it was an attempt, a long time after Marut, on designing a fighter. They would have wanted to get the max out of a simple design (you see the canards in MK2 now),
without too many control surfaces. This would make the control laws 'relatively' simple to write, test, refine and at the same time make the design less likely to fail.
All this might have resulted in a compromise on aerodynamics (F 35 ain't too nimble either, dosen't mean it's bad). "
A word about control laws tejas CLAWS ,
SAAB tried to develop this tech for grippenC and failed, SAAB's failure led to crash of wo grippen protoypes , leading to test pilots hurrying into retirement,
Then SAAB outsourced this critical tech to a US firm in Gripen C,
Even in nGripen NG , the same US firm is developing this CLAWS , fly by wire tech.
But ADA 's reliable and efficient RSS fly by wire CLAWS has drawn accolades from pilots around the world,
And now ISRO's shuttle prototypes, and future shuttles are relying on the same tech to land from space,
The reason ADA and NAVY, IAF are confident about short timelines fr Tejas mk2, TEDBF, AMCA is this indigenous CLAWS expertise by developed by ADA fr Tejas mk1.
Also both tejas mk2, and AMCA will have the same wing loading like tejas mk1,
In aerodynamics, wing loading is the total mass of an aircraft divided by the area of its wing.
This low wing loading enables fighters to take off and land with high loads from high altitude himalay airfield like LEH.
It also gives the fighter a sharp nose pointing ability via ITR,
SO Tejas mk2, AMCA fly by wire software will rely on the tried , tested and proved to be excellent CLAWSD effort of Tejas mk1,
canards are just additional surfaces for vortex aiding and short take off landing devices, that will require some modification of CLAWS
"
