What about self protection systems? Do they currently have any (chaff/flares, RWR, ECM, etc.?)

Aside from the Derby/Magic II combo, what other weapon types are carried outside of the the Aden cannons or is air defense strictly the name of the game?

They have Tarang mkII RWR , chaff and flares.ECM – EL/L 8222
They can carry two Sea Eagle AShMs.
LUSH was about giving the IN SHars a BVR capability.

LUSH patch

That birdie in all black getup would be a lot more exciting..

See, the above argument of “not entered service” is of little use. We do not hesitate to claim that JSF is superior to a MiG-35 or Gripen, even though it has not an hour in operational service and the latter two have been in service since decades. This is precisely because of superior specifications of the JSF.

Similarly, Tejas Mk.1 as it flies today, matches the technical specs of Gripen C/D. That’s it, and that’s all. “Operational service”, “proven record”, “combat history” will come very soon.

As i said specifications are nothing more than endpoints in development.They can give just an indication.On the other hand operational capabilities can differ much from the specs.The Gripen for example flying for such a long time have gathered so much data and experience on various performance parameters so that it is more capable of reproducing that specified performance in case of an actual operational deployment.That only comes with time.And lets not forget that operational use itself throws up various problems often which the developers hadnt considered when they pushed the aircraft through IOC and FOC.

The above is inaccurate. What was stated that Tejas Mk.1 as it flies today, is comparable to Gripen C/D.

The tejas Mk1 as it flies today is NOt comparable to Gripen C/D unless it is operational and capable of emulating that claimed specs on a day to day basis.

Not only did the stingers have the advantage of being fired from elevation , but firing in that atmosphere also increased the engagement envelope of the weapon..that is something the IAF hadnt considered before the start of operations.

However, the most important argument put forth has been the challenge to the conventional wisdom of, Tejas-cannot-be-compared-to-Gripen-coz-it’s-a-prototype-whereas-Gripen-has-so-many-years-of-“proven”-service-record.

The above point is totally inconsequential while comparing the technical specifications of Tejas Mk.1 vis-a-vis Gripen C/D !

And thats a very good argument.All are means to an end.What good are the tech specs if an aircraft hasnt put those to use for serving the country?Just comparing tech specs are just a theoretical exercise with no practical value when the aircraft has not even entered service.

What is this obsession if proving Tejas is >> than Gripen anyway?The Tejas has to achieve much more in terms of proving its operational capabilities to be comparable to Gripen.

While hifi specs are good to look at on a paper..may I say that the time to be happy with only that has passed.

It looks more like this..:D

Yes..but the defining sentence of that part of interview is the one I quoted..so I m not sure.

Anyway that is how I read it.Others may differ.

It says it reached above 1350KM/hr but it does not really say at what altitude etc and if the tanks of the Tejas were empty, what it was carrying etc etc..

too ambiguous.

That is not whats ambiguous.Its whether the given speed is sea level mach or max dive speed obtained while diving from 4km to 900 m altitude.