From this* comparison of schematics, it may be seen that the Tejas has relatively fewer joints and contours as compared to the “cluttered” schematic of the Gripen. This shows the high blending involved in the Tejas vis-a-vis an acclaimed combat jet.

The Gripen three view is more detailed, that’s all. It should not serve as a detail comparison, just as an outline comparison of the fighters.

As mentioned earlier, but noteworthy to be repeated, Tejas’ wings are at a far more acuter angle than Gripen, making the former more streamlined. Further that the external load of the Tejas is almost the same as Gripen, all these and previously mentioned facts may be sufficient to atleast suggest that the Tejas overall is a superior design to the Gripen.

*courtesy, robban.

There is nothing in the LCA design that would suggest it being superior to the Gripen. The Gripen obviously has a more slender fuselage, if it offers lower drag compared to the fuselage of the Tejas, I don’t know. However, the Gripens main wing in conjunction with its fully movable canards allows for an optimal L/D ratio for all cg positions, Mach and AoA. A luxury the Tejas doesn’t have.
Gripens inlet design also allows for a lower drag compared to the Tejas. The SAAB 105 at first had “armpit” located intakes similar to the Tejas, but they eventually changed it in order to lower the drag, and to get a better airflow to the engine.

I don’t know how up to date this information is so,,,

Excerpt from World Air Power Journal, Volume 42.

In early 1999, the Department of Defence’s directorate of operational test and evaluation(DOT&E) reprted that the Super Hornet – in its current configuration, in which it entered Opeval – suffered from a number of limitations in the dogfighting arena. These included “limited high angle of attack agility and engagement controllability, poor loaded energy addition, slow angle of attack reduction, slow engaged turn reversal, slow sustained turn performance and high bleed rates.”
A retired Navy fighter pilot with combat and flight test experience sums up these limitations: “This airplane is a dog in ACM”. High AoA agility, he notes, is essential to perform a scissors or other basic fighter manoeuvers. “Limited… engagement controllability” means that the aircraft is slow to change its flight path. Other comments in the DoD report, he says, suggest that the Super Hornet loses energy (in speed or altitude) too quickly in a turning engagement, and does not recover rapidly. Once the nose is up, it takes too long to lower it before accelerating. Turning reversal, described as “slow”, is a primary defence capability.
These points were reinforced in late 1999 by a controversial article by Lieutenant Colonel Jay Stout, a combat veteran Marine Hornet pilot: “The Super Hornet’s shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: “We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots.” These shortcomings are tacitly known around the fleet, were the aircraft is referred to as the Super-Slow Hornet.

Actually I disagree with both these views, as the Gripen does not have a ”coke-bottle” shape. Its intakes protrude laterally and are prominent in front of the wings.

The Tejas’ intakes are more blended with the fuselage, and they are under the wings. Besides, the Tejas is shorter, and has lesser wingspan than Gripen, which should give it lesser drag than Gripen. The Tejas also does not have canards unlike Gripen, that increase drag by large margins.

The Gripen does have “coke-bottle” shaped fuselage, but with a long relatively thin tail. The area ruling on the Gripen is pretty much at the theoretical optimum.

The Tejas is not very much shorter compared to a Gripen, but it is stubbier, hardly beneficial when it comes to low drag. And the Tejas wingspan is pretty much the same as that of the Gripen, they differ ~20 cm.

And canards can help lower drag as well, for example during maneuvers.

Edit: A comparison http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/LCAJAS390-1.jpg?t=1197311374.

Sigh. We’ve already had this discussion, and it has all been explained before. You didn’t get it then, you wont get it now. I wont bother explaining again.

the delta still is not good to sustain a turn rate, that is the reason the Gripen has a 20 deg/s sustained turn rate and a 30 deg/s instantaneous turn rate

That is just a load of dung. The Gripen is an unstable delta with a fully movable canard, not a stable 2:nd gen Mirage III with bolted on supersized strakes. And a ~20deg/sec STR is excellent for a plane with a TWR far below any of the competition.

How’s this one?:)

Or these two?

I’m afraid I can’t help you but around the same time two Viggen’s(SF/SH IIRC) was scrambled to intercept an incoming Su-15. The Su-15 was armed with missiles, and instead of turning back to Russia it manouvered behind one of the Viggens a locked a missile onto it. The Viggen pilot instinctively rolled inverted and pulled into a steep dive, the Su-15 followed. At very low altitude the Viggen made a high G pull-up, avoiding crashing into the ocean. The Su-15 could not manage the same and crashed, killing the pilot.