Gripen is a far superior aircraft available today with ultra modern design and electronics but it comes with a great cost. It has many goodies and very cheap to operate. It has ultra modern western weapons like meteor, ASHRAM etc. and very good AESA. I remember our ex IAF chief saying that It should be Rafale for IAF and second choice shall be Gripen. Such a good aircraft Gripen is.
Our MWF shall be in same league but customized for Indian conditions. With lower wing loading, it will be highly effective in Himalayas. It will match Gripen in Air to Air missile package with batter ground attack capabilities with send off weapons like SAAW and Brahmos NG. If we are able to put a top class EW suite like Spectra in MWF, it can surpass Gripen in its capabilities. If we are able to put proposed 75/125 KN engine, it will be a wonder. If we are able to make it a frontal stealth and detachable weapon bay, and TW 75/125 KN engine, only F-22, F-35 and Su 57 can have an edge over it. It will be a grand pa of all 4.5 generation plane. All what I have stated is possible within a decade of first flight of MWF. Wepaon bay is already consider for Tejas. I think we have frontal stealth in mind for ORCA, We have planned 75/125 KN TWC for AMCA. All technologies are in pipe line. We need to integrate it in MWF.
F 16 is a draggy design so as Eurofighter and F35 and Tejas.F-16 and F-18 performed poorly in Himalayas in MMRCA competition. One of our IAF officer said that F-16 and F-18 has no future. Now compare 19 ton MTOW against 76 KN dry and 17.5 against 58 kn Dry. Do the ratio and you will get answer from your own post which plane is batter design. MWF far exceeds traditional MTOW ratio which is dry thrustX250 Kg/KN. For F 16, it is exactly 250 while for MWF it is 324.
Really, there is no way gripens GaAs based radar will surpass T mk2s GaN based radars which both are powered by same engine. What advantages gripen has is it's meteor missile & dude it is not ashram ,u might call It asaram bapu..anyways it's asraam. Tejas has all best IR missiles weather it is new aim 132 British asraam or python 5(best) or Russian one.. secondly Tejas mk2 will also have meteor by the time even Tejas mk1 will have it when indian radars will be used on it. Mbda is ready to integrate on indian radar. Just remove the Israeli components..
Gripen is ultra modern really it is a good fighter but not the way you are saying it. It's avionics and systems are not going to be ultra better than Tejas..
Selecting Eurofighter & Americans options will keep our sovereignty in there pockets especially Germany who delayed engine for jorawar tanks. And Russian options were already sidelined so naturally gripen became our second option.. anyways
Gripen has already lobbied to alot to create certain narratives. What, 1st paragraph gripen is better second paragraph no Tejas will match it's capabilities. Stick to one thing. Secondly gripen is that expensive because most of the systems are imported from Europe Sweden doesn't make all even landing gears like systems are imported..
Mk2 is going to have quite capable EW developed by drdo. it is going to have amca technologies like distributed aperture systems and alot more of amca..
There is no need of a 75/125 engine not really I said so many time look at mirage with more draggy design same weight & mtow with less powerful engine (64/94) it goes mach 2.2 and has quite good range good performance. Then definately mk2 with 58/98 will be as good as it is...
Gripen has the same engine both has 1.8 mach who needs this big engines which will weight more and definitely they will not be as efficient as this ge f414 engines. Even if iaf thought of more powerful engine there is a epe variant which makes 58/117.. so there is no problem here hope u get it.
And amca is not going to have a 75/125. There is no such thing in pipeline. Only a ge f414 engine will be used in amca mk1. That's it and tedbf & T mk2 will have it. All technology are already in pipeline bruh hal is going to use alot of amca tech in mk2...
Right now only ge f110 and pratt Whitney F100 Engine can give 75/125 and there is no such thing of using them in it.
And no way you said f16 is as draggy as eurofighter Tejas & f35..
Lol calling f35 a draggy design do u even know that trapezoidal wing are THE MOST EFFICIENT compared to most of the wing types. They produce way less drag than eurofighter and other deltas.. it could be more draggy than f16 because stealth & aerodynamic are inversely proportional to each other but there is no way f35 is more draggy than deltas like eurofighter.
And last thing I I'm again repeating you are straight away comparing f16 thrust to Tejas mk2 .
F16 uses this powerfull engines not because it needs them the whole development of f16 was because the f15 was becoming very expensive to use it for all operations. It was becoming overkill and risking this big fighter was not a good choice. That's why in less than a decade after the f15 , f16 was inducted.. the purpose of this using this engine of f15 was not need but rather to reduce the cost of operating because it uses f15 engine it doesn't need another mro facility no need for different crew. Already developed engine, same operation support equipments etc etc. It is the most cheap aircraft to operate.. now you are comparing it's thrust to weight ratio with Tejas mk2 and saying it's inferior lol it's not look at gripen with similar mtow look at mirage 2000 with similar mtow it uses even less powerful engine of max thrust 94kn With even more draggy design...
What Tejas mk2 has is all fine the engine is enough comparing it with other overpowered doesn't make sense even if iaf thought of it there is GE F414 EPE. Of 117kn.
And fighter do not fly at mtow all the time they fly in numbers of 2,4,6,8. By that way the payload is delivered, mtow is hardly reached when bombing missions are given to the fighter.. whenever you go to bombing you don't send it with mtow. It doesn't happen like that. And when is good thrust to weight ratio needed when you are engaging enemy or evading missiles. By the time you will reach there atleast half of fuel will be used that's how .
Thrust to weight ratio are generally calculated.
In bombing configuration if you find enemy engaging you you are not gonna fight to with heavy bombs with you you will drop the all and defend yourself that's how it is. No way you need enough thrust to keep bombs armaments with you and then engage with enemy. Usually other fighter escort you with below mentioned configuration..
There is no need to compare 19ton mtow with 76kn
And 17.5 ton with 58kn
With 7850kg+3400kg fuel+ 800kg ideally 6 missile
4 astra +2 asraam
(For Interception configuration that's when good thrust to weight ratio is needed & Tejas has it ) it gives mtow of 12050kg. Which will have thrust to weight ratio of 0.82. considering the consumption half fuel it will be 0.95. and there is always a option of EPE variant with 117kn Thrust. Then it will have 0.95 with full fuel & 1.13 with half fuel consumed.
iaf will possibly use the F414-GE-EPE. As it doesn't require change or increase in intake. Dry thrust is same it's just afterburning thrust which is increased to 117kn