What weapons will their NG carry?
I wonder if India can afford to contain so many aircraft in the next seven or eight years time let alone twenty. They have a real danger of fracturing their force structure if they continue on this trend.
Replace the lightweight F-5 with a twin engine front-line fighter during budget crisis? Absurd.
You’re right, the actual gun is tiny.

I was distracted by the small cooling vane under the gun. It looked to be something else in that diagram.
Here is an idea!
Su-30s with GE-F110 engines!
They would be just as likely to order the MiG-35 with EJ200’s.
Is that a reconn pod?
If the Gripen shares common engine logistics then it’s a big plus IMHO. Too bad Dassault didn’t have the luxury of an M88-derived light fighter to help spur engine price efficiencies. I’ve said it several times in the past that they should have fielded an F.1 that used the M88. The F.1 is far from useless.
The F-16 outperformed it in about every category save range and sustained velocity. An interceptor needs to be able to scoot hundreds of miles in short order. The F-106A traded its maneuverability and speed performance potential for range and an exceptional flight stability. Being fifteen foot longer and about a yard taller gave the F-106A plenty of room for fuel, an internal bay with simplified mechanical trapezes for its missiles, and spaces for a lot of electronics. The F-16 goes a few hundred in short order, but then it has to find fuel or turn home.
I always liked the F-106A as the best of the century fighters. (Although I like the F-105 more, I see it as the tactical bomber it truly is and not as a fighter.) I never understood why the forces that be couldn’t build some kind of an F-106C program as a dedicated ANG solution to cover the airspace over the CONUS. Simple, affordable, dependable, and something that did the job well. It didn’t need to carry an AWG-9 weapons system or be multirole. It could have utilized OTS missiles like the AIM-9 and AIM-7, later adopting AIM-120. Don’t get me wrong, the F-16 is a fine choice for the ANG today. I just think the F-16 program has ballooned to be a jack of all trades and to redesign it as an interceptor at this point would not be politically acceptable. I’m not a fan of the fixed intake that’s optimized for strike duty. There is no internal weapons bay. It doesn’t have an IRST; perhaps an aircraft dedicated to the interceptor role should carry a twin IRST/TCS chin like the F-14D. The F-16’s with CFTs sort of attain the range necessary, but the basic model is too multidimensional now its become anything but simple.
The F-35A is not remotely a step in that direction.
The L-15 seems to be in the same mold as the Yak-130, but its more in the MiG-19 class IMHO. Certainly is a step up from the FC-1 as far as raw engine power, but I would favor the latter as a warplane. The FC-1 has a nose more suited for a radar and it looks like its made for wartime when it comes to the logistical sense. The L-15 looks like a design built for peacetime. I guess the idea that a trainer has beefy engines in it sounds good in theory, just doesn’t seem like it would be good for sales.
The problem with the loss of an engine is compounded when you lose electrical power. It sounds like most of the twins only generate power from one of the engines, which would make the statistic for lower losses compared to single engine fighters being roughly at a 1:4 ratio even more amazing.
A centerline fuel pod with a miniature engine, the bare minimum to stay airborne – fudge factor included of course – to limp another hundred miles or so. Doesn’t have to be used in war-time, just a safety factor for the single-engine aircraft during routine flights.
Has anything been developing with the L-15?
The wing is pointed and has a sawtooth edge with a rail or missile inside of the wingtip. The second pic is clearly a Gripen, the first doesn’t look like it is IMO.
Looks like a Kfir. And what kind of M2K HUD is it?