Nice to see the korean foto!
it seems more “rectangular” in the front? and more dragy, but still “close enough”.

the general layout (excepting the canards) and probable weight range seems close to that of the MCA, whose probable configuration can be seen from an ADA presentation a couple of years ago..it may have changed as well.

Maybe in size and the angled twin tail, but no greater resemblace.
But i dont think sweden will pay for such an aircraft. they have no need for one.
Its on the drawingboard for export, thats it. Sweden will not pay for any fighter program thats not fit any new requirement for the swedish AF.

Next step for sweden will be Neuron or something in that neighbourhood. Still is kind of beyond 2030-2040:s.

winner of

what about:
Romania
Bulgaria
Kroatia
Greece
Canada
Danmark
Japan
Saudi second order.

Anyone more in the loops for buying fighters?

Swiss competition: Gripen C/D
Indian MRCA: Gripen NG or F-18(f414)
Brazil FX: Gripen NG or Rafale
Libya Flanker
Nederlands: F-35

Size has little effect on RCS and even if it didn’t all of those external stores would………..

Ok, RCS is one of many better things about beeing naturally small, but theres more….
A bigger plane is easier to spot(last time i checked, dont have a reference on that),
a big engine that propulse a big plane does burn more fuel, that also light up the sky with IR.
Ok, things can be consealed to a point… but the fact is a bigger plane makes bigger signature.. on all accounts.

the best would be a small jet, the size of a peanut, the firepower of a b-52, and the range of an empty A380, and the speed of X-15, the turns of a Mig29 OVT 🙂
Of course it is easier to fit bigger electronics into a big plane and more fuel. But the Ew or radar of a small fighter vs a bigger is not bigger is better.. the power of it is more and more the software..when it comes to fuel fuelfraction would be the important factor.

Sign, MiG-21, F-4, Mirage-III etc. cannot carry as many weapons (by number & weight) and fuel as the Tejas.
Even by assuming that they did, their airframes are “outdated”, i.e. they have all-metallic frames which do not have stealthier composites, they cannot be converted to all digital FBW, and their overall handling and overhaul periods are much inferior to any modern fighter like Tejas.

It must be noted that Tejas can carry as many weapons as serving MiG-29 and MiG-27s of the IAF. Thus, it is suitable to be an M.R.C.A.

i was not marking LCA, i was marking the comparison. It´s not about fuel, range or max load. Its about so much other things these days, and i dont want to add a list, it would be too long any how.
Thou tejas still cant be compared with gripen A:s in the most fields. And still it probably cheap.

The US has extremely close relationships with a vast list of great countries. (UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, South Korea, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ..

extremely isnt the case.. close is more proper, and france is o more its own. and dont forget israel…the messy teenager of Oncle Sam.

Question:

The current trend looks like bigger is better……..

The current trend is bigger thust, because bigger planes and less aerodynamic shapes. Not “bigger” engines.
Bigger planes is a cause of trouble getting things small. But trends are turning with UCAV:s, and better electronics, better using each others sensors(radio modes, and data analysis), smaller diameter muntions.

Better efficiency is always strived for(thust per weight, size and fuel).