LCA AF Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

[randomradio]

It will be 4000+km. The gripen E has 4000km ferry range with similar internal fuel capacity.
The tejas can carry around 5300 kg at full load. So the mk2 would be capable of carrying around 7500kg since gripen E carries 7400kg with 10 hardpoints. So you can expect to be closer to the f-16 blk 70 in carrying capacity considering mk 2 has 13 hardpoints.

It depends on the size of the external tanks.

Gripen E carries more external fuel than internal fuel. So it depends on whether the IAF wants to carry such large tanks on the LCA as well.

Mk1 currently carries 1250L and 800L tanks. Israeli F-16s can carry 3000L tanks. The Rafale carries 1250L supersonic and 2000L subsonic tanks.

Gripen E carries 2 1700L and 1 1200L max. So Mk2 would require new 1700-1800L tanks to match its range.

 

[Hydra]

Oof. As is the F-15E versus the F-15C or the F-16 B50 vs the F-16A.

Su-35 is different from the Su-27 "structurally and system-wise" too.

It shows that you don't know how knowledgable people can trick the ignorant with semantics.

MK2 is having canrad, increased dimensions, New engines retractable fuel probe. With canrad & dimension changes will require rewriting the fly by wire software & intese testing as we seeing on any new aircraft. So MK2 is technically a new aircraft.

 

[randomradio]

MK2 is having canrad, increased dimensions, New engines retractable fuel probe. With canrad & dimension changes will require rewriting the fly by wire software & intese testing as we seeing on any new aircraft. So MK2 is technically a new aircraft.

That's not how a new aircraft is defined. Designers and manufacturers for every product sell that story, but it's to confuse the gullible. That's why we have idioms like, "Old wine in a new bottle." Or why Indian courts happily kill pharmaceutical patents when companies try to renew it saying their 20-year-old medicine is "new."

It's easy to tell what's an old design versus a new design by following the R&D process.

Mk2 is not undergoing the intense testing regimen Mk1 went through. Since it's a simpler modernization, they decided that they can skip straight to making serial production models as prototypes. Whereas a new design required TDs, prototypes, LSP, SP, IOC, FOC, which both TEDBF and AMCA are gonna go through, a 10+ year process. Mk2 jumped straight to SP+FOC, no IOC. Hence just 2-3 years of flight testing before production begins in 2029.

So why does Mk2 only need 3 years and AMCA 10 years if it's supposed to be a new design?

 

[Sathya]

That's not how a new aircraft is defined. Designers and manufacturers for every product sell that story, but it's to confuse the gullible. That's why we have idioms like, "Old wine in a new bottle." Or why Indian courts happily kill pharmaceutical patents when companies try to renew it saying their 20-year-old medicine is "new."

It's easy to tell what's an old design versus a new design by following the R&D process.

Mk2 is not undergoing the intense testing regimen Mk1 went through. Since it's a simpler modernization, they decided that they can skip straight to making serial production models as prototypes. Whereas a new design required TDs, prototypes, LSP, SP, IOC, FOC, which both TEDBF and AMCA are gonna go through, a 10+ year process. Mk2 jumped straight to SP+FOC, no IOC. Hence just 2-3 years of flight testing before production begins in 2029.

So why does Mk2 only need 3 years and AMCA 10 years if it's supposed to be a new design?

Definitely not just 3 years of testing.
Only basic capabilities will be certified before induction.
Like Rafale added capabilities will be certified after induction.

 

[randomradio]

Definitely not just 3 years of testing.
Only basic capabilities will be certified before induction.
Like Rafale added capabilities will be certified after induction.

Everything except the airframe is ready for production. And the airframe needs 2-3 years to finish flight testing. And production will begin after all the tests are cleared, so that's in 2029. ADA is hoping to get everything done in 2028.

Rafale followed a different route, where the forces received LSP, IOC, and FOC jets over a period of 5 years, a process AMCA will also take between 2036 and 2041, as per the current schedule. There's no such thing with Mk2. The first jet inducted will be fully certified for combat.

There's more. If the Mk2 is a new design, there would be a significant break between rollout and first flight, at least a year, for ground tests followed by taxi and runway trials. For example, AMCA will rollout in 2026-27, but is expected to fly only in 2028. Su-57 took almost 3 years from rollout to first flight. But Mk2 is expected to fly in just 3 months after roll out.

 

[Parthu]

Oof. As is the F-15E versus the F-15C or the F-16 B50 vs the F-16A.

Su-35 is different from the Su-27 "structurally and system-wise" too.

Nope, Mk2 & Mk1 are nothing like that.

Su-27 vs Su-35 is less than 5% difference in MTOW. F-15C vs F-15E is 19% increase.

Tejas Mk1 vs Mk2 has 29% increase in MTOW.

The closest analogue is F-18C vs F-18E at 27% increase. But nobody considers them the same aircraft.

It shows that you don't know how knowledgable people can trick the ignorant with semantics.

They certainly tricked you into thinking it's the same plane.

That's not how a new aircraft is defined. Designers and manufacturers for every product sell that story, but it's to confuse the gullible. That's why we have idioms like, "Old wine in a new bottle." Or why Indian courts happily kill pharmaceutical patents when companies try to renew it saying their 20-year-old medicine is "new."

It's easy to tell what's an old design versus a new design by following the R&D process.

Mk2 is not undergoing the intense testing regimen Mk1 went through. Since it's a simpler modernization, they decided that they can skip straight to making serial production models as prototypes. Whereas a new design required TDs, prototypes, LSP, SP, IOC, FOC, which both TEDBF and AMCA are gonna go through, a 10+ year process. Mk2 jumped straight to SP+FOC, no IOC. Hence just 2-3 years of flight testing before production begins in 2029.

So why does Mk2 only need 3 years and AMCA 10 years if it's supposed to be a new design?

That's cuz they're reusing several components & sections of airframe. No need to retest aerostructures that already flew. Development time of SH was also reduced because of commonality with F-18C. And also because we've now adopted far more advanced methods of building & prototyping.

The point is, Tejas Mk2 is a whole different weight class of fighter.

Your whole reason for not wanting to admit to the differences in these platforms is because you wanted to show that the Mk2 couldn't fill in for any of the MMRCA's intended roles. So you cooked up a narrative that Mk2 was the same as Mk1 with minor modifications.

Which is such an insult to the program & what it aims to achieve. All cuz you want to worship the Rafale instead.

 

[randomradio]

Nope, Mk2 & Mk1 are nothing like that.

Su-27 vs Su-35 is less than 5% difference in MTOW. F-15C vs F-15E is 19% increase.

Tejas Mk1 vs Mk2 has 29% increase in MTOW.

The closest analogue is F-18C vs F-18E at 27% increase. But nobody considers them the same aircraft.

F-16A to E is a difference of 60% in MTOW. So why did the IAF call it a 40-year-old design?

MTOW changes based on the need, it's irrelevant to make the real distinction.

That's cuz they're reusing several components & sections of airframe. No need to retest aerostructures that already flew. Development time of SH was also reduced because of commonality with F-18C. And also because we've now adopted far more advanced methods of building & prototyping.

The point is, Tejas Mk2 is a whole different weight class of fighter.

SH first flew in 1995 and achieved IOC in 2001, it still took a few more years to get all its capabilities done with. Whereas the Mk2 only needs 3 years to get everything done.

Your whole reason for not wanting to admit to the differences in these platforms is because you wanted to show that the Mk2 couldn't fill in for any of the MMRCA's intended roles. So you cooked up a narrative that Mk2 was the same as Mk1 with minor modifications.

Which is such an insult to the program & what it aims to achieve. All cuz you want to worship the Rafale instead.

Lol. Mk2 cannot fulfill MRFA's shoes in any case. This is just in your mind, not what experts actually think.

What people are saying is the Mk1 is so trash that they had to make a whole new design when in fact it's the opposite. What's special about Mk2 is the Mk1 design is so good that even all the changes necessary for the transition could be done using the same airframe with a very short testing cycle, whereas everybody else needed significant design changes, many years of flight testing, and a slow introduction process.

Hornet was trash, the SH was even more trash, the only reason it was inducted was due to lack of great power competition in this area and it was much cheaper than the Tomcat, and somewhat still met requirements. But Mk1 is so good that minor changes can mean major improvements that the SH team could only dream of, and the testing and transition cycle is so short that it will make anyone's eyes water.

SH saw a 40% increase in empty weight compared to Mk2's 20%. But fuel capacity increased by only 33% vs 45% on Mk2. Payload increased by 30% vs 62% on Mk2. To get all that SH only kept the forward fuselage of the Hornet while changing everything. But Mk2 retains majority of the Mk1's airframe to get even higher numbers. All we need are 2 plugs and plugging some design deficiencies, that's it.

Even Rafale cannot be improved to this extent or within such a short testing cycle.

Admit it, you know jacksh!t about this subject.

 

[Parthu]

F-16A to E is a difference of 60% in MTOW.

Where are those numbers from?

F-16A/B MTOW: 37,500 lbs
F-16E/F MTOW: 46,000 lbs

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

So a 22% increase.

And even with that the F-16 evolved from a lightweight air defence fighter (the Block-15 was literally named ADF) into a full blown MMRCA that now competes in MRFA.

So why did the IAF call it a 40-year-old design?

You're gonna be in deep doo-doo if you base your analysis around IAF sound-bytes. They do these quips to elevate/suppress competitors they don't like (in this case, also to downplay PAF capabilities).

Next you'll say Tejas is indeed just a MiG-21++, and therefore Mk2 must be a MiG-21+++

MTOW changes based on the need, it's irrelevant to make the real distinction.

It's a useful indicator to show how the airframe has evolved to accommodate new capabilities - a lot of the MMRCA's requirement is down to the ability to use multiple A2A & A2G weapons in the same sortie, omni-role so to speak. With the MTOW & payload capacity of Mk1, this wasn't really possible in a practical sense.

But Mk2 is a whole different story. It's genuinely omnirole-capable.

SH first flew in 1995 and achieved IOC in 2001, it still took a few more years to get all its capabilities done with. Whereas the Mk2 only needs 3 years to get everything done.

They weren't building with the kind of digital tools & rapid prototyping we have today.

Lol. Mk2 cannot fulfill MRFA's shoes in any case. This is just in your mind, not what experts actually think.

What people are saying is the Mk1 is so trash that they had to make a whole new design when in fact it's the opposite. What's special about Mk2 is the Mk1 design is so good that even all the changes necessary for the transition could be done using the same airframe with a very short testing cycle, whereas everybody else needed significant design changes, many years of flight testing, and a slow introduction process.

Hornet was trash, the SH was even more trash, the only reason it was inducted was due to lack of great power competition in this area and it was much cheaper than the Tomcat, and somewhat still met requirements. But Mk1 is so good that minor changes can mean major improvements that the SH team could only dream of, and the testing and transition cycle is so short that it will make anyone's eyes water.

SH saw a 40% increase in empty weight compared to Mk2's 20%. But fuel capacity increased by only 33% vs 45% on Mk2. Payload increased by 30% vs 62% on Mk2. To get all that SH only kept the forward fuselage of the Hornet while changing everything. But Mk2 retains majority of the Mk1's airframe to get even higher numbers. All we need are 2 plugs and plugging some design deficiencies, that's it.

Even Rafale cannot be improved to this extent or within such a short testing cycle.

Hope you're ready to eat your words when MRFA gets cancelled.

But most probably you won't. Rather you'll say you've been calling for this from the start.

Admit it, you know jacksh!t about this subject.

Says the guy pulling numbers out of his behind.

The more you talk, the more you humiliate yourself.

 

[randomradio]

Where are those numbers from?

F-16A/B MTOW: 37,500 lbs
F-16E/F MTOW: 46,000 lbs

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

So a 22% increase.

And even with that the F-16 evolved from a lightweight air defence fighter (the Block-15 was literally named ADF) into a full blown MMRCA that now competes in MRFA.

MTOW.

How will you get a good MTOW after modernization if the initial design is just junk in the first place? Why don't you look up how much the internal fuel increased between A, C, and E first.

You're gonna be in deep doo-doo if you base your analysis around IAF sound-bytes. They do these quips to elevate/suppress competitors they don't like (in this case, also to downplay PAF capabilities).

Next you'll say Tejas is indeed just a MiG-21++, and therefore Mk2 must be a MiG-21+++

Yes, Mk1 is a Mig-21++. Nothing's changing that fact. Whereas, Mk1A is a huge improvement.

The IAF is the end user.

It's a useful indicator to show how the airframe has evolved to accommodate new capabilities - a lot of the MMRCA's requirement is down to the ability to use multiple A2A & A2G weapons in the same sortie, omni-role so to speak. With the MTOW & payload capacity of Mk1, this wasn't really possible in a practical sense.

But Mk2 is a whole different story. It's genuinely omnirole-capable.

Yes, and as usual you do not realize that MTOW also consists of weights that don't actually exist on a clean aircraft with no fuel.

They weren't building with the kind of digital tools & rapid prototyping we have today.

LOL. The poor pioneers. What will they say when they read this?

Hope you're ready to eat your words when MRFA gets cancelled.

But most probably you won't. Rather you'll say you've been calling for this from the start.

I wonder what you will say when the opposite happens.

Says the guy pulling numbers out of his behind.

The more you talk, the more you humiliate yourself.

You are yet to even comprehend what I've stated there. Like basic maths.

I guess people prefer to be in denial rather than believe the Mk1 airframe design is just that good, something even ADA pointed out as the reason for its fast design and induction cycle more than half a decade ago.

 

[Zarion]

Yes, Mk1 is a Mig-21++. Nothing's changing that fact.

For calling any aircraft some other aircrafts "++", they should atleast have similar airframe or derived from that aircraft like su 30 is a su 27+ or su 35 a su 27++. Or else one might even call the F 15 EX as su 27++, like that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Eh! Who renamed this thread adding LCA but still maintaining "medium"?
Make up your mind if it is light or medium.
Tejas MK1 = LCA.
Tejas Mk2 = MWF, started to pump up MK1 LCA.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

For calling any aircraft some other aircrafts "++", they should atleast have similar airframe or derived from that aircraft like su 30 is a su 27+ or su 35 a su 27++. Or else one might even call the F 15 EX as su 27++, like that just doesn't make sense.

I only know C++.
BTW, some people wan't to scale jets from 4.1 to 4.9, like X+ to X+++++++++

 

[Zarion]

I only know C++.
BTW, some people wan't to scale jets from 4.1 to 4.9, like X+ to X+++++++++

Yeah, I don't like comparing aircrafts like that but if someone wants to use it they should use it for aircraft that have similar airframe like the su 27 derivatives or the F 15, F 16 derivatives, even the Tejas mk 1, mk 1A can be described like that.

 

[randomradio]

For calling any aircraft some other aircrafts "++", they should atleast have similar airframe or derived from that aircraft like su 30 is a su 27+ or su 35 a su 27++. Or else one might even call the F 15 EX as su 27++, like that just doesn't make sense.

It's about the overall capabilities.

The Mig-21 and LCA can both fire R-73 and R-77. Both have radars that can use 100% of the capabilities of the R-77, both radars can track and engage the same number of targets. Mig-21 provides 30 minutes of endurance vs 40 min for LCA, so not that different. Both have the same capacity for EW, given that both carry the same EA pod. Both came with the same targeting pod. Both have the same frontal RCS.

As for what separates them, due to design deficiencies on the Mk1, the Mig-21 is cheaper and easier to maintain and operate. The Mk1 is underpowered because it exceeded its design empty weight by 1 ton, while the Mig-21 does not suffer from this issue. The Mig-21 has a special burst mode in its engine that rapidly increases thrust to the detriment of its shelf life, ie, the core melts at such temperatures, but it's supposed to bring a dogfighting advantage. The nose inlet allows the jet to have a far superior scramble time.

As for LCA, it is newer, so some of its avionics are marginally better, like 15 km more range on its radar. Its engine delivers more thrust, even if the advantage is ruined by the Mk1's weight. It has better turn and roll rates, although acceleration and climb rates are inferior, product of being overweight. It has two extra hardpoints, it's not enough to call it "medium" since it has to choose between BVR and bombs, but it's still 2 more than the Mig-21 when it comes to some OCA and DCA missions, meaning it can carry 6 missiles with a center tank, while the Mig-21 can only manage 4.

That's why it's called a Mig-21++. It's just marginally better than the Mig-21, while not providing some of the more important advantages the Mig-21 has, like acceleration and climb rate, which is also why it was called a "three-legged cheetah."

When the LCA was designed, the Mig-21 had a sh!t radar, no BVR, and its main WVR weapon was the old R-60. But by the time the LCA first flew, the Mig-21 had already caught up to the LCA in avionics and firepower. A number of critical deficiencies on Mk1 are set to be addressed in Mk1A in some capacity or other. But Mk1 still required 22 waivers from ASR to FOC, meaning there are 22 sets of capabilities that have been permanently declared as null and void for delivery as they are all impossible to achieve.

So what was supposed to be a massive generational change amounted to just a minor upgrade over existing capabilities, and this minor upgrade took 15 more years to actually deliver. So that's why the IAF was so impressed [/sarcasm].

 

[randomradio]

Yeah, I don't like comparing aircrafts like that but if someone wants to use it they should use it for aircraft that have similar airframe like the su 27 derivatives or the F 15, F 16 derivatives, even the Tejas mk 1, mk 1A can be described like that.

You make that comparison for dissimilar aircraft, not similar ones 'cause that's already known. All F-16 variants are either + or ++ of their previous variants. There isn't even a debate about that.

But LCA Mk2 is a ++ over F-16E. So it tells people what jet it is comparable to.

Similarly, the AMCA is an F-22++, not an F-35A++, even though both are in the same weight category. That means it's a 5th gen ASF, neither 6th gen nor a strike jet.

What it means is the jet comes with significantly superior capabilities, but is not a generational leap over the jet it's being compared with.

So KF-21 is a Typhoon++ and TEDBF is a Rafale M++. Life becomes easy with such simple analogies.

 

[Zarion]

You make that comparison for dissimilar aircraft, not similar ones 'cause that's already known. All F-16 variants are either + or ++ of their previous variants. There isn't even a debate about that.

But LCA Mk2 is a ++ over F-16E. So it tells people what jet it is comparable to.

Similarly, the AMCA is an F-22++, not an F-35A++, even though both are in the same weight category. That means it's a 5th gen ASF, neither 6th gen nor a strike jet.

What it means is the jet comes with significantly superior capabilities, but is not a generational leap over the jet it's being compared with.

So KF-21 is a Typhoon++ and TEDBF is a Rafale M++. Life becomes easy with such simple analogies.

Yeah I get that. The only thing that I previously argued was that using "++" doesn't right, because it makes it seem like that the two aircrafts are somehow related. I do get it that we can compare them as analogies but, it just feels wrong to compare like that in my opinion. I was just throwing my pov on that.

 

[Zarion]

It's about the overall capabilities.

The Mig-21 and LCA can both fire R-73 and R-77. Both have radars that can use 100% of the capabilities of the R-77, both radars can track and engage the same number of targets. Mig-21 provides 30 minutes of endurance vs 40 min for LCA, so not that different. Both have the same capacity for EW, given that both carry the same EA pod. Both came with the same targeting pod. Both have the same frontal RCS.

As for what separates them, due to design deficiencies on the Mk1, the Mig-21 is cheaper and easier to maintain and operate. The Mk1 is underpowered because it exceeded its design empty weight by 1 ton, while the Mig-21 does not suffer from this issue. The Mig-21 has a special burst mode in its engine that rapidly increases thrust to the detriment of its shelf life, ie, the core melts at such temperatures, but it's supposed to bring a dogfighting advantage. The nose inlet allows the jet to have a far superior scramble time.

As for LCA, it is newer, so some of its avionics are marginally better, like 15 km more range on its radar. Its engine delivers more thrust, even if the advantage is ruined by the Mk1's weight. It has better turn and roll rates, although acceleration and climb rates are inferior, product of being overweight. It has two extra hardpoints, it's not enough to call it "medium" since it has to choose between BVR and bombs, but it's still 2 more than the Mig-21 when it comes to some OCA and DCA missions, meaning it can carry 6 missiles with a center tank, while the Mig-21 can only manage 4.

That's why it's called a Mig-21++. It's just marginally better than the Mig-21, while not providing some of the more important advantages the Mig-21 has, like acceleration and climb rate, which is also why it was called a "three-legged cheetah."

When the LCA was designed, the Mig-21 had a sh!t radar, no BVR, and its main WVR weapon was the old R-60. But by the time the LCA first flew, the Mig-21 had already caught up to the LCA in avionics and firepower. A number of critical deficiencies on Mk1 are set to be addressed in Mk1A in some capacity or other. But Mk1 still required 22 waivers from ASR to FOC, meaning there are 22 sets of capabilities that have been permanently declared as null and void for delivery as they are all impossible to achieve.

So what was supposed to be a massive generational change amounted to just a minor upgrade over existing capabilities, and this minor upgrade took 15 more years to actually deliver. So that's why the IAF was so impressed [/sarcasm].

Yeah I totally get that, I was just saying that comparing aircrafts like that felt wrong because it makes it seem like they are somehow related to each other, nothing else.

 

[randomradio]

Yeah I get that. The only thing that I previously argued was that using "++" doesn't right, because it makes it seem like that the two aircrafts are somehow related. I do get it that we can compare them as analogies but, it just feels wrong to compare like that in my opinion. I was just throwing my pov on that.

Yeah. Some Westerners call the Su-57 a Su-35++ to denigrate it. So it's not always used in a good way. Calling the LCA Mig-21++ was also for the same reason, but it fits that definition.

 

[Parthu]

MTOW.

How will you get a good MTOW after modernization if the initial design is just junk in the first place? Why don't you look up how much the internal fuel increased between A, C, and E first.

You tell me. You're the one who said F-16E has 60% increase in MTOW over F-16A which is wrong.

You were trying to use a BS figure to prove a point, now that the figure is proven wrong, you want to say the point itself is BS.

Hilarious.

Yes, and as usual you do not realize that MTOW also consists of weights that don't actually exist on a clean aircraft with no fuel.

WTF



What does that have to do with what we're on about? We're talking about how an increase an MTOW can be a useful indicator of how much the carrying capacity of the airframe changed as a result of strengthening, enlarging or otherwise improving it.

I wonder what you will say when the opposite happens.

I'm not afraid to stand corrected. That's just you. Cuz I'm here to learn while you're just here to argue.

When you stand corrected, you don't admit to making a mistake (like I did when I erroneously believed F-35B could fit in Vikrant's elevators in the other thread), instead you just try to change the subject.

I guess people prefer to be in denial rather than believe the Mk1 airframe design is just that good, something even ADA pointed out as the reason for its fast design and induction cycle more than half a decade ago.

When did I ever deny that.

The biggest mistake we made in the original Tejas QRs was that we wanted the Mk1 to be way too small & light. Had we gone for an F16-sized fighter from the start, we could've gotten so much more done with just the Mk1 without even needing to go to Mk2.

Yes, Mk1 is a Mig-21++. Nothing's changing that fact. Whereas, Mk1A is a huge improvement.

The IAF is the end user.

It's about the overall capabilities.

The Mig-21 and LCA can both fire R-73 and R-77. Both have radars that can use 100% of the capabilities of the R-77, both radars can track and engage the same number of targets. Mig-21 provides 30 minutes of endurance vs 40 min for LCA, so not that different. Both have the same capacity for EW, given that both carry the same EA pod. Both came with the same targeting pod. Both have the same frontal RCS.

As for what separates them, due to design deficiencies on the Mk1, the Mig-21 is cheaper and easier to maintain and operate. The Mk1 is underpowered because it exceeded its design empty weight by 1 ton, while the Mig-21 does not suffer from this issue. The Mig-21 has a special burst mode in its engine that rapidly increases thrust to the detriment of its shelf life, ie, the core melts at such temperatures, but it's supposed to bring a dogfighting advantage. The nose inlet allows the jet to have a far superior scramble time.

As for LCA, it is newer, so some of its avionics are marginally better, like 15 km more range on its radar. Its engine delivers more thrust, even if the advantage is ruined by the Mk1's weight. It has better turn and roll rates, although acceleration and climb rates are inferior, product of being overweight. It has two extra hardpoints, it's not enough to call it "medium" since it has to choose between BVR and bombs, but it's still 2 more than the Mig-21 when it comes to some OCA and DCA missions, meaning it can carry 6 missiles with a center tank, while the Mig-21 can only manage 4.

That's why it's called a Mig-21++. It's just marginally better than the Mig-21, while not providing some of the more important advantages the Mig-21 has, like acceleration and climb rate, which is also why it was called a "three-legged cheetah."

When the LCA was designed, the Mig-21 had a sh!t radar, no BVR, and its main WVR weapon was the old R-60. But by the time the LCA first flew, the Mig-21 had already caught up to the LCA in avionics and firepower. A number of critical deficiencies on Mk1 are set to be addressed in Mk1A in some capacity or other. But Mk1 still required 22 waivers from ASR to FOC, meaning there are 22 sets of capabilities that have been permanently declared as null and void for delivery as they are all impossible to achieve.

So what was supposed to be a massive generational change amounted to just a minor upgrade over existing capabilities, and this minor upgrade took 15 more years to actually deliver. So that's why the IAF was so impressed [/sarcasm].

This is the problem with thinking that battles happen on Wikipedia spec sheets.

A MiG-21 simply cannot compare with LCA over the course of a conflict. It all comes down to how many sorties you can put up. The LCA with F404 was leaps & bounds ahead of the Fishbed. If ADF sortie rate drops, that would endanger your air bases. You start losing your ASFs & DPSAs while they're still on the ground. Then you lose the war. The ADF is the backbone of your ORBAT.

The MiG-21 vs LCA is the difference between losing that backbone in a month vs being able to keep it going for a year or two, till your opponent is forced to concede defeat.

Yeah. Some Westerners call the Su-57 a Su-35++ to denigrate it. So it's not always used in a good way. Calling the LCA Mig-21++ was also for the same reason, but it fits that definition.

And that was the same intention as when they tried to describe LCA as such. They were trying to denigrate & kill it, so they can end up importing something else instead. Remember how a proposal for SEF competition was birthed right after we gave greenlight for Tejas Mk2? They wanted to kill that as well and go for Gripen or F-21.

IAF may be the end-user, but they certainly cannot be relied upon to foster a domestic industry. Probably because they aren't capable of understanding its importance. This is why Russia's defence minister had to be changed from a General (Shoigu) to an economist (Belousov) halfway through the war. Shoigu couldn't bring himself to understand the fact that the war had to be won in the factories, not just on the battlefield.

This is also why the Military-Industrial Complex was birthed in the US. You had to tie major economic interests into pushing military production, otherwise the brass would mess everything up.

Even if we assume they genuinely believed LCA was MiG-21++, it just proves that they think the next war will be fought exactly like the last one, and also that they were oblivious to the Chinese threat at the time too.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Yeah, I don't like comparing aircrafts like that but if someone wants to use it they should use it for aircraft that have similar airframe like the su 27 derivatives or the F 15, F 16 derivatives, even the Tejas mk 1, mk 1A can be described like that.

For personal understanding people can use whatever they wan't but for common public understanding it is best to look at a table of features which looks neat & tidy, to the point & there's nothing to get personal & fight over technology bcoz physics, chemistry, maths won't change for us. Everything gets obsolete with time.

For easy understanding we can look at tabuated points like -
- Airframe design (tandem bi-plane, delta-canard, etc), rudders, V-tail, etc.
- Generation. Different gen prioritise different aspects. But people can ignore gen # upon disagreement & focus only on features.
- Roles (AA, AG, Interceptor, Recon, Omni-role).
- Weapons types, range, capacity.
- Empty weight, Gross/Steathy weight (STOW), MTOW.
- 1 or 2 engine, TWR (Thrust/Weight Ratio)
- Auxilliary/extra characteristics like TVC (Thrust Vector Control), extra jamming, Supercruise, etc.
- RF & EO sensors, their coverage.
- Range/Endurance based on fuel quantity, consumption rate (SFC), airframe design.
- MLU (Mid Life Upgrade) options, limits & impacts.
- Competence with global technology level.
- CAPEX, OPEX, Cost-Benefit, etc.

After these technical outline, a SWOT analysis can be done with rivals/competitors (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)
Ultimately what everybody wants is that their jet shoud fire all weapons if possible hitting the targets, survive & come back.
So people can simply look at 3 broad aspects -
- Situational awareness by sensors.
- Offence by weapons.
- Defence by countermeasures & tactics.