J 10 with a radar with 75 km for 3 sq m target.’Nuff said.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/KLJ-710-Fire-Control-Radar-FCR-China.html

Even the LCA MMR has 120 km for 3 sq m target.

MRCA has nothing to do with LCA. MRCA emerged from a request in 2000 by IAF for a repeat order of 125 mirage-2000’s. funds for LCA project was sanctioned only in 1993. if you expect they should have completed LCA development in 7 years then I have a palatial house on mars. for sale, @ $1, just for you.

The main pretext of the mmrca was to address declining force levels in the IAF.This was due to retirement of several older generation types, and Mig 21s were the main back bone of the IAF.Originally , the LCA was supposed to replace the Mig 21s.Later it panned out in a different course however.But thats besides the point.As of the late 1990s[before 1998] , the IAF had not projected for the requirement for the M2Ks because according to their calculation the LCA would maintain the numbers making up for retired types.And initially LCA was thought to be able to gain IOC by 2002-2003 [bit unrealistic , after full funding was was started in 1993 , IOC after 10 years was calculated]when TD 1 rolled out in 1995.However then Pokhran happened and LCA timelines were pushed further out.Also in 1999 Kargil happened and the IAF was really impressed with the ability of the M2K.Therefore in 2001 , the IAF knowing that the LCA would be delayed , stated a requirement of about 126 aircraft to maintain 39.5 squadrons.That is how the mmrca is related to the LCA.

how is the assumption(though he stated it as fact) correct ?
if Mk2 satisfies IAF they might order more than 83 and spend the rest of their money of PAKFA and AMCA. in that case LCA will outnumber MRCA in IAF.
p.s. I didn’t get your point about the MKI, IAF is very satisfied with it.

re MKI – the point was that IAF likes to order aircraft in batches as compared to ordering as a single batch no relation ship to performance of MKI.Now if Tejas MKII doesnt satisfy the IAF , they may like to order a second batch of mmrca to fill in the numbers while curtailing the numbers for MKII.

Taking into consideration the future force structure , IAF has projected a need for 83 MKII.That is not an absolute value.Particularly when the MkII isnt even flying.
If the final Tejas MKII is not according to IAF’s liking , they may order less , conversely , the numbers can go more than that.
For eg. if the Tejas MKI would have arrived early , we would not have had to deal with the whole damn mmrca circus.
Just like the Su 30MKIs , if the Tejas MKII doesnt satisfy the IAF , they may order more batches of mmrca.That assumption of quadbike is correct in that sense.

this comparison is crap….nothing is right 😉

yeah!but give me a source on the erieye..

Sweden doesn’t even operate EMB-145.. a clue on how accurate this comparison really is? ESM/IFF is integrated in the Erieye SSR.

Forget the aircraft for a moment ..any good source on the Erieye ?TIA.

Some excellent pictures from aero India..

Gripen and the LCH

The MMRCA Result 😉

Panorama

IFF interrogator can provide identity and vector data for ADSI updates. Some have it, some don’t.

What I meant was that if there’s no IFF interrogator how do they classify contacts as friendly or hostile..

Re. Shukla’s report:
a) Super Hornet as it stands is going to have trouble in the indian conditions – probly came forth during the trials. Not agile, definitely strike oriented, poor aero ability. But compensates with first class electronics, very complete, immediate readiness/availability (they could probly supply a sqd for familiarization within months of the contract) and tempting upgrade possibilities. Commonality with the Tejas engine might help also.

Except for a mature aesa radar [does not automatically mean its superiority compared to other radars] and the growler variant, I dont see how F 18s electronics offer any real advantage over say the Rafale or the Typhoon.