Apologies to all for saying I was baffled by the mach 1.2 for 150 miles statement that someone had quoted. Opened a big can of worms by mistake.

Not really, for LM and most the definition of supercruise actually means the ability to sustain considerably over Mach 1 without A/B, whilst carrying a useful load and get there easily without A/B. Aircraft like the F-35/Rafale/Gripen wouldn’t be considered supercruisers by their definition.

Isn’t it quite simple? An aircraft that can sustain mach 1+in level flight on dry thrust.

F-35 can maintain mach 1.2 for 150 miles without afterburner

That statement (read loads of interpretations of it) still baffles me. It reaches mach 1.6 with afterburner but takes 150 miles on dry thrust to bleed off speed down to mach 1.2? Reaches mach 1.2 (perhaps with afterburner ) then can maintain that speed on dry thrust for 150 miles after which that speed becomes a problem to maintain?

Thats all fine and dandy in terms of it being a good technology demonstrator for India, no doubt, but does not get over the fact that the IAF is suffering from dwindling numbers and it seems very clear that the LCA will not be the long talked of MIG-21 replacement, but rather a few squadrons to salvage national pride

National pride is a curse to ‘prestige’ projects IMO. What is wrong is played down and those elements that are right are played up, portraying the project in an unrealistically positive light. The irony with LCA, seems to me, is that having missed all the timeline targets by miles and many of the performance targets without anyone getting a grip on the project, it has left India with little choice but to build quite a few squadrons now to fill the gaps that could have been plugged in good time by a different light fighter.

It remains to be seen what is really happening. Last thing I heard, delivery schedules were slipping.

Let’s not forget that Boeing withdrew the F/A-18 from the previous competition. With Gripen and Rafale having further development assured over the next 10-20 years and there being no real prospect of F/A-18 production continuing much longer, I don’t see the point of Boeing re-offering the F/A-18. An order from Kuwait would not change the picture fundamentally IMO.

This Embaraer and Bombardier are one trick pony. slightly complex project than it very easily get delayed and over budget. Airbus could rescue A400m I highly doubt Embaraer can do that.

IIRC while Airbus could have chosen to rescue the A400M, Airbus threatened to renage on their contract and shut the program down unless the customers agreed to pay a much higher cost than was in the contract. Stupid customers gave in instead of insisting that Airbus deliver the goods as per the price in the contract (which would not have broken Airbus financially). Having said that, some of the problems stemmed from the partner governments wanting a new European turboprop to be developed, which increased project risk, when there was a perfectly good one available from P&W Canada, so I guess the problems were not all down to Airbus.

Saab won last time, even though both the Rafale and Typhoon beat them on the air policing scorecard, therefore cost is their main driver, so I don’t see anything changing, the other competitors are simply more than they want to pay. S. Korea did the exact same thing to get more leverage with LM.

I agree that cost seems to be the main driver. Remembering that they are replacing a light fighter, another light fighter seems the most appropriate replacement to me. Of the light fighters available – KAI FA-50, F-16, Gripen E – I think Gripen E is the sensible choice.

If I were Eurofighter I don’t think I would bother to tender. If I were Dassault I don’t think I would bother to tender, either. Perhaps LM would be prepared to offer the F-16 in the hope of getting a few more orders before ceasing production. Not sure what chance KAI would have.