BS..I wrote this

I mentioned escort, point defence, air superiority, recon, strike and yet you deliberately latch onto point defence, as if I said that the Tejas is only a point defence fighter. in reality, as Tejas test pilot, Cmdr Maolankar said, and its on record, the Tejas has long legs for a really small fighter, because of its fuel sipping F-404 engine and aerodynamics. and anyway, with A2A refuelling probe, and onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS), the Tejas’ endurance is MUCH MUCH higher than that of a MiG-21, for which a sortie can generally last only about 45-50 minutes.

You wrote? The quote seems to be from someone called Kartik?

Anyway, all those roles can also be performed by the MiG-35, which could offer greater flexibility in terms of mission profiles. By the way, how do you quantify “MUCH MUCH higher”, I’ve never come across this unit before, it’s definitely not imperial or SI.

I didn’t say that the LCA is either 3rd generation nor that is only capable of replacing MiG-21s in a point defence role, so there is nothing to agree about there between us. the PLAAF maybe IAF’s main threat, but the IAF will always need to keep 2 borders safe if and when there is any aggression from the Chinese side or the Pakistani side. and here, on the western border, Tejas Mk.1 or Mk.2 are more than adequate for the bulk of the PAF’s current and future projected fighters. there is no exceptional 4th generation fighter that the PAF will get, so the Tejas would be adequate for Air Superiority roles.

Well according to your previous posts, the LCAs main role will be as point defence to replace the MiG-21. As for the LCA handling the bulk of the PAF, it depends on how the avionics in the JF-17 and FC-20 turn out. In particular, the FC-20 will be a largely unknown system, and no amount of “extrapolation” will approximate its capabilities.

the MRCA is the major beast of burden, with it being tasked with long range strike, interdiction, anti-shipping, SEAD, yet being more than capable of taking on escort, recon, and air-superiority roles. the IAF wants certain technologies and weapons- AESA for long range detection and other associated benefits from AESA radars, long range weapons, PGMs, anti-radiation missiles, anti-shipping missiles, recon pods, EW jamming etc. as mandatory for this fighter, because it will fulfill roles that are today or were yesterday, being fulfilled by MiG-21s, MiG-23BNs, MiG-27s, Jaguar IMs and Jaguar IS’ as well take on more because of its added capabilities. These will likely be the backbone of the fleet out till 2040. periodic upgrades will be required from the manufacturer of this fighter.

keep in mind that the combined strike fleet of the IAF today itself, exceeds 200 and those are simply MiG-27s and Jags. by the time the MRCA is fully inducted, there will be no MiG-27s (more than 100 today) and older Jags will be retired (around 50-60), so that will leave a shortfall of 150-160 fighters that the MRCA will fill.

the Tejas Mk.1 and Mk.2 will form the third tier, that of the light fighter that is cheap to buy (half or even lesser cost than that of the MRCA and even Su-30MKI or PAK-FA), operate and maintain (being single engined and light) and capable of escort, point defence, air superiority and recon and strike with PGMs and LGBs. 120 odd Tejas’ will mean that the IAF will be readily able to replace MiG-21 Bison squadrons with a fighter in nearly the same weight category, but with far greater capabilities than the Bison. these can be readily stationed at forward air bases and are adequate for most of the PAF’s current fleet of fighters and future JF-17s. with upgrades, such as an AESA set for the Mk2 and internal EW and RWJ, and podded IRST, the Tejas Mk.2 will be able to stay current till the 2030s, at least in the sub-continent.

Yes I agree the 3rd generation LCA is perfectly capable of replacing the MiG-21 in the simple point defence role, it just about performs that. But my main point is that it doesnt realy bring anything additional. It will already be obselete by the time the last units are delivered to the IAF, hence the reason to drop the project and concentrate full steam on the MCA/PAK-FA. Having a combo of the MiG-35MKI and SU-30MKI will greatly improve the balance relative to the PLAAF, the main threat. Having a lower third tier in the from of the LCA won’t really help here.

just as begging before the US is the most cost-effective solution for the Pakistanis and F-16s are more than adequate for PAFs requirements anyway..

so, the PAF needn’t bother with the JF-17 since, its a generation behind the F-16 Block 50s that they’re getting, so it doesn’t offer anything extra..why is the PAF even bothering to induct these 3rd generation fighters anyway, when they could so easily ask for, no demand, more free or subsidised F-16s, which would cost less, and the infrastructure for maintenance, training, etc. already exists, whereas for the JF-17, a 3rd generation fighter, they’ll have to set up new infrastructure, at additional cost. unless the PAF wants an A-5 and J-7 replacement, otherwise its a total waste of time and money, and Pakistan is not even gaining any industrial base or knowledge whatsoever, unlike India, since the JF-17 is a Chinese developed aircraft anyway with little to no Pakistani input.

they’ve gotten umpteen items free-of-cost by begging the US and blackmailing them by saying that if they don’t get these items (such as F-16s and P-3Cs against terrorists ! :rolleyes:) then they can’t fight the terrorists, whom incidentally, they armed themselves in the first place to wage war against their two neighbours, Afghanistan and India.

Zardari was just a few days ago even telling the rest of the world that they should help arm Pakistan, and the Pakistanis are even asking Russians now for arms..imagine that ! the pathetic poor quality Russian arms, which the western and Chinese armed Pakistani Army has always considered poor quality and only good for quantity for large services like the IA..why even bother with the JF-17 then ?

Although I didn’t mention Pakistan, I completely agree with you. If the US can guarantee no further sanctions, I think the PAF would love to acquire more F-16s. However, as that isn’t going to happen, I think the PAF has learnt the hard way and won’t rely solely on the US for front line fighters, hence the need for the JF-17 and the J-10/FC-20. Which is the point I was making in the first place, why allow the IAF to be placed under the control of political and military string by sourcing a very significant part of their airforce in the hand of western powers?

Also just to correct you, it wasn’t Pakistan’s idea to creat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Back then they were called “Mujahadeen” or holy fighters becuase they were taking on the evil empire that was the Soviet Union. The CIA actively funded and flamed Islamic extremism in that part of the world to defeat the Soviets, so I suggest you brush up on your history. Once used, the Afghans and Pakistan was left to pick up the pieces, which explains the current mess in that part of the world.

As for India, well there are plenty of conditions in Indian occupied Kashmir for the Jihadi outfits, particularly considering the human rights abuses by the occupying Indian army, rape, killing of children, burning houses, ethnic cleansing etc.

Now I will quote you something you claimed the other day here

so, now you claim that you know better than the IAF.

How about arguing within the limits on IAF requirements? And not typing blunders like “MiG-35 can fit the light aircraft role?”

No, I’m not really claiming to know better than the IAF, I just don’t think they really require a light fighter in the class of the LCA. However, if that is what they want, who am I to argue, which is why I was discussing its relative merits and disadvantages, which you kindly pasted the link for in your post.

What it got to do with Light class LCA? How come your claim that Mig-35 can fill up LCA role? Or your claim m2K can fill up LCA role?

The structure of your sentances are making less sense, even by your standards.

Let me make it clear, drop the LCA, induct the MiG-35MKI.

While “other” current generation planes have evolved, LCA is still in the making stage. There is a huge difference. A catching up of 15-20 years technology generation.

This proved my point.

Thats not what IAf says. IAF says it wants light , medium and heavy fighters. Even if there is talk of commonality of systems, there is another section in IAF which wants diversity. MiG-29 is not a solution as IAF preferred M2K. While MiG-35 is a semi paper plane.

M2K sourcing had nothing to do with LCA development. M2K and LCA were purchased and developed independent of each others existence. LCA was needed to replace Mig-21 kind and not M2k/MiG-29 kind.

MiG-35 is a semi paper plane? And the LCA and MK2 are not? If the LCA was intended to replace the MiG-21, why has it taken this long? Why is it still undergoing development?