bones, where did you get the idea that IAF didn’t order the LCA willingly ?

sorry you get no marks for original imagination here. 😀

swerve, that’s why I said repackaged, other than the engine many subsystems are used directly from the KF-16. I’m not knocking on the project at all, I think it is a very successful and well planned project.
but to deny its direct lineage from the KF-16 is to deny the facts. whichever way you look at it, it is a watered down version of KF-16 with some modifications and I say that with nothing but admiration for the project’s idea and execution.

it depend on Korea… but just look at how long india need to finish their project such as LCA and their Arjun tanks, and how fast Korea creating the T-50,, Korea would be very-very hesitated to cooperate with India. Both have too different pace of work when come to military stuff.

you can’t really compare the T-50 with the LCA project. the T-50 is little more than a re-packaged KF-16 and that too to make a trainer aircraft.
virtually every critical part is sourced from LM, in contrast the LCA developers had to develop even nuts and bolts in-house and many co-developments were abruptly suspended in the middle of the program. even so, I am not convinced that T-50 has provided enough know-how to korean aerospace industry to develop a 5-gen fighter on its own, unless they make considerable compromises or again get LM to do it for them.
now, that’s not a problem for korea since it has the advantages of being a client-state of US but it might be a problem for Indonesia if Indonesia-US relations ever deteriorate.
on arjun tank, this is not the correct thread but suffice to say the tank was developed within 10-12 years of actual specifications set by army and those take it quite easily to the class of comparable western tanks. the tank itself was ready by 1998, it’s quite another matter that russian tank lobby in the army blocked its purchase with one excuse or another.

The airforce personel says tejas does NOT:
1. Accelerate fast enough
2. Climb fast enough
3. turn fast enough

that’s one problem, it is underpowered, not three separate ones. :rolleyes: it is solved by using a higher powered engine.

The test pilot says
1. it starts dying at very low AOAs due to poor air intake design

very low AOA ? he said that ? designing the inlet for the LCA’s s-shaped intake is no trivial task.
problems like this happen in all complex projects, it will be solved in due time. that’s always assuming ajai shukla quoted the test pilot properly, quite possible he made a misquote and the test pilot was warning against such a possibility, not saying that it is a certainty.

So which of the following is true. They are wrong because:
1. they are dumb and do not understand
2. they are corrupt and want to support imports
3. they are generally fascinated by imports
4. all of the above.

5. none of the above

may be point no 1 applies to you and not them ?

I still do not understand that why Gripen – a plane of almost the same weight of Tejas with a lower thrust engine has no thrust issues while Tejas has. It has good AOA and is reportedly close to supercruise capability.

the almost same weight gripen is lighter by 800kg, almost a ton.
it’s empty weight is 5700kg and LCA is 6500kg.

moreover LCA has a much larger nosecone to accommodate larger radars abd that adds to the drag as well.

I quite understand that. if the first pic happens to be a test article (9.41) then the comparison is with itself and not eith original mig-29k(9.31). that’s all I’m asking, do we know for sure that the first one in the post above is not one of those ?

Jimmy J, how dare you ? 😡 180 degree matt is the fountainhead of all defence related knowledge, the saviour of stupid good for nothing DRDO scientists and his mere utterings have more validity than laws of physics. he doesn’t need proof; if 180 degree matt says something IT IS TRUE irrespective of how stupid it may sound to ordinary mortals like us.

haerdalis, it has been mentioned by one of the Navy test-pilots that arrestor hook would be added shortly.

they could have just stationed 2 subs on each ‘side’ of australia and be done with it.