I think engines are the big problem for most countries. I can see them getting everything else right.

I would love if people would discuss a Fifth Gen vs Fifth Gen Scenario. F 22 vs F 35 one of the Arab states turning against the U.S may be.

DAS vs Super Maneuverability Electronics vs Kinetics.

Sukhoi’s track record could not compensate for the MKI program being reworked to include Phases 1, 2 and 3 over several years.

Sukhoi was making everything in house ie. sourcing stuff from the Soviet/Russian industry, and a project like the MKI with Israeli, French and Indian systems being involved was new for them. On the other hand SAAB have been doing this sort of integration for many years and clearly has more experience in that aspect over Sukhoi.

Let the Tejas be 10% even 20% behind SAAB’s aerodynamic design! The point is India can then build a Tejas MK3 or a MK-2.1, 2.2 to iteratively improve upon its design the same way SAAB did, once it is done with the MK2 which is improving on its MK1 in the same manner

.

I never ever advocated scrapping the Tejas or reducing its numbers for the Gripen NG, both are and should be seperate programs. If the Tejas MK2 fails to offer what it says it will I do not think it will matter if its the Gripen or the Typhoon that is selected, IAF may limit the Tejas orders and go for a follow on purchase of the MRCA.

And if Tejas’ problems are not solved by the additional thrust (meaning they are design related) then they will not be solved in an MK3 or MK4 either, our next bet will then be the AMCA.

In that case, the MMRCA should be scrapped, and India should go around buying upgraded Mirage 2000’s and MiG-29s. That’s all that’s required, if you set the sights so low.

The MIG 35 or the upgraded MIG may have teething issues but it will be a good match for any flanker varient the PLAAF currently operate or may operate in the near future.

We also have to look at operational costs, here a single engined fighter has its own advantages. The F 16 fleet is the backbone of the USAF, don’t you think with 270 SU 30s and 250-300 T 50s we have our heavy fleet covered. And something like an F 16 or a Gripen complements this much better than another twin engined heavy fighter.

And so much of aircombat is still decided by pilot skill, now will all our pilots/navigators flying all these heavy fighters get as much time in the air as our Su 30 pilots get now ? I think IAF will consider all this when making its decision and not go by performance alone.

If that was the case, the fighters would not be in the contest to begin with. Right now, there is nothing that suggests MOF intervention.

Not really it will depend on the commercial bids and budget allocated. Well the A330 was in that particular competiton as well and is now in the new tanker comptiton as well.

With SAAB’s Track Record at making fighters. I would anyday pass the Gripen NG as low risk.

I know Tejas is vital for India but ADA/HAL has still a mountain to climb to reach SAAB’s level of expertise in Aerodynamic Design. I want the LCA MK2 to be as good or better than the Gripen NG, but if I was a betting man I will not put my money on it being so.

My realistic expectation is to get a cheap decent fighter thats as good as the C/D Gripen.

India need a cheap new gen fighter which it can mass produce in numbers and which can stand up against regional threats, the Gripen ticks all the boxes and is cheaper to operate being single engined.

Also I think the relationship between Sweden-SAAB and India will be in such a way that India will probably be able to do what they want to the aircraft.

Yes Nozzles must be like F 22.

Defense spending has nothing to do with it, If you cut back on other things that a state must do and concentrate on defense that can happen. I am no fan of the PRC but they spend a lot of money on welfare so do India and the West.