Embraer is not the answer for amca, they are ahead of Hal/ada but not far enough ahead to pull Hal and ada along, which saab and uac are.

ahead ? :rolleyes: in fighters ?
embraer has a superlative niche capability in designing and assembling civil airliners.
as far as fighters go, HAL/ADA has vastly more experience and capability than embraer.

a vague answer to an equally vague question would be : “a large number of sorties would be needed to take care of a large number of PLAAF fighters”.

in practice, a question like this makes very little sense and there are infinitely many variables to even try anything nearing a reasonable analysis by laymen like us. at the most we can compare the number of modern fighters that can operate in the region of interest, (namely himalayan border areas including tibet) in which PLAAF has a slight advantage in numbers and the quality and quantity of supporting infrastructure.

more importantly, this question should be asked in the IAF thread.

so the A320 is officially a seaplane now ? 😀

thanks for clearing that up Fed.

second that, very pleasing lines. kind of reminds me of the A-6 intruder from the side.

quadbike, what exactly is the problem with ADA’s track record with LCA vis-a-vis saab’s with gripen ? :p

ADA and co have actually developed most of the critical subsystems for LCA unlike saab which has the luxury of integrating carefully chosen items developed elsewhere. for example, LCA’s most time consuming exercise has been developing and validating the CLAW while the gripen simply uses the F-16’s.
while establishing ‘track record’ people focus on rate of progress. I don’t believe you are doing so.
19 years from barely 2nd gen capabilities 4+ gen is amazing progress by any standard. 😉

what is same level?
supercruise, kinetics, aerodynamics, turning agility, 10-12g structure, sensorfusion, signalprocessing?
EW?
Fuel and load?
integrated weapon diversity?
Land and takeoff performance?
etc etc..
what is on the same level really?

And what is on the same level on mk1 with gripen A/B?
Not anything of the above mentioned.

is the last part based on your knowledge of the LCA program or just a fervent wish ? 😀

supercruise, of course. even the Mk1 has displayed supercruise under certain conditions.
kinetics, aerodynamics, turning agility, yes, yes and yes. the tejas is considered extremely agile, as and when its full aerodynamic envelope can be explored using the more powerful f414, it will leave many fighters in the dust. do check its wing loading for example. anyway, what makes you think the gripen is a trend setter in any of these ? it certainly isn’t.
10-12g structure, hello, the gripen, like all other modern fighters can withstand 9G and any higher G’s only momentarily. what makes you think the LCA is any different ?
sensorfusion, my dear sign, LCA already features the same level of rudimentary sensor fusion that gripen does. the AMCA would of course feature sensor fusion of a generation beyond. in time that would also flowback into the LCA.
EW? difficult to compare isn’t it ? however, DRDO jammers are already replacing/complementing the elta el/m-8222 in IAF service. an even more advanced design is a couple of years from production. make what you want of it.
Fuel and load? the only datapoints where the NG may have the upper hand.
integrated weapon diversity? completely irrelevant. LCA does not need to integrate every old projectile from around the world, just the ones that India makes and IAF asks for. if needed however, integrating a weapon system is quite easy thanks to its OAC.
Land and takeoff performance? already quite satisfactory, thank you. check out the videos of it performing in hot and high conditions (leh in summer) with heavy load.

^overall performance? I assume this does not includes things such as range/payload etc?

I guess range/payload would be still superior for NG, but not by any margin large enough to put it in a separate class. MMI and EW suit would likely be superior.

You missed the point completely. I was simply amusing over the fact that now China has to be concerned over it’s technology leaking to the West, when for a considerable time in the past, it was the other way around. Just goes to show how far the Chinese have come, in aerospace at least anyway.

I think you missed the point as well. it is still the other way around, there is a lot of concern about chinese industrial espionage on the west.
chinese concerns of their cutting edge weapons falling in american hands is not because chinese tech is superior to western tech (in spite of the considerable progress they have made) but because it would allow western militaries (read US) to formulate effective counter measures against it.

or do you really believe US wants/needs to steal chinese 5gen tech ? :diablo:

PLA-MKII, although the idea of a UCAV force for PAF is interesting, IMHO its a non-starter. Lack of finances. I, once, argued for something similar for IAF instead of MCA. And even though GOI has much greater financial resources, a much bigger computational & other R&D base, even with the support of a western company i recognised it a high risk approach and would only become operational around 2035 or so. An autonomous UCAV would not only require many 5G features but it would take decades for AI to mature.

vikas, DRDO has already embarked on a UCAV project with IAF backing. a couple other proposals are being looked at as well.

:confused: What are you talking about??

that the gripen level is something India can reach on its own, given a few more years. so it makes sense to go for something beyond gripen level when you are spending all that money.