What's new

LCA Tejas MK 1 VS Gripen C/D

Which plane is batter according to you?


  • Total voters
    169
Even if JF-17 is the constable .... Tejas couldn't even make it to the BUS.
Poor Tejas who's left behind on the road says that I am the front seat passenger with Gripen. :lol:
Desperate Indians :rofl:

My reply to him was more to correct his idea behind the analysis. and desperate Indians? or desperate Pakistani that they couldnt even develop a fighter on their own so much that they landed on Chinse labs to build one for them...shows who was desperate....huh:whistle:
 
Even if JF-17 is the constable .... Tejas couldn't even make it to the BUS.
Poor Tejas who's left behind on the road says that I am the front seat passenger with Gripen. :lol:
Desperate Indians :rofl:
well brother the thing is IAF who will be the main user of LCA Tejas are not desparate to get it as they have a lot of options but can the same be said about your devine JF17 for PAF :azn:

any way i myself think that tejas is too late now but it atleast is a great learning lesson for us and there is so much more we can do with it + in couple of years we will have the MK2 tejas with 98 Kn GE414 engine , israeli 2052 ASEA and indo -israeli EW suite and wepons package and dont forget you could never achive the money and apability to build them in huge numbers like russia,china, west or soon India so till then :cheers:
 
My reply to him was more to correct his idea behind the analysis. and desperate Indians? or desperate Pakistani that they couldnt even develop a fighter on their own so much that they landed on Chinse labs to build one for them...shows who was desperate....huh:whistle:

Yes my dear ! When you are short at cash then a wise man never gambles. We had no experience and even required financial support to run a full fledged multirole fighter aircraft program, so we seek for an experienced partner to avoid hurdles. And now we have a flying multirole aircraft unlike LCA, though its not fully multirole at the moment and weapon integration is in progress like BVR, ASM, ARM, SOW weapons.
But you guys gambled ! While having the experience of aircraft manufacturing, you guys made it a failure. Tejas could have been potent fighter by now if the program was helped by a foreign partner like let say France, Tejas was actually their design and they could make it a successful aircraft like Mirages or Rafale.
LCA is nothing but an example of a good looking potent bird mismanaged to failure.
 
There were 186 Gripens in service
in 5 countries
and tejas is still is in trials
Well said. You can't compare an aircraft which is still in development with an active duty proven one.
 
How can you compare an aircraft which is not even operational....!!!
wow self delusion also has some limits.....

Is this forum a joke now....
 
well brother the thing is IAF who will be the main user of LCA Tejas are not desparate to get it as they have a lot of options but can the same be said about your devine JF17 for PAF :azn:
desparate ? Actually you should say interested as they have to look for other mature and proven options. IAF is not satisfied with LCA so you see something being changed every now and then. There is no better option then self reliance and if IAF is looking for other options its because LCA failed fill the needs. Doesn't matter how you mock, Thunder is indeed something great happened to PAF.
 
Yes my dear ! When you are short at cash then a wise man never gambles. We had no experience and even required financial support to run a full fledged multirole fighter aircraft program, so we seek for an experienced partner to avoid hurdles. And now we have a flying multirole aircraft unlike LCA, though its not fully multirole at the moment and weapon integration is in progress like BVR, ASM, ARM, SOW weapons.
But you guys gambled ! While having the experience of aircraft manufacturing, you guys made it a failure. Tejas could have been potent fighter by now if the program was helped by a foreign partner like let say France, Tejas was actually their design and they could make it a successful aircraft like Mirages or Rafale.
LCA is nothing but an example of a good looking potent bird mismanaged to failure.

Though I will buy that logic but partially.. Looking at the LCA program it was conceived in the 90s and that time you had a better growth rate than us and you had access to all techs in the world, thanks to uncle Sam and you could have done some thing but you didnt. + your requirement is different than us. You wanted a fighter but we wanted an industry. so dont call it gamble but an informed decision!

About outside help, we didnt want to take outside help at the beginning and I would call it good in way because help can teach you the art but not the science behind it. we struggled and so did LCA.

But just dont measure the outcome with the success of LCA which eventually it will be, but look at what we got today. we have lined up an industry which can produce fibre materials to MFDs to radars to EW suite, I am not adding the design and aerodynamics...So we have achieved our goal to 80% level. we have a set industry, a set workforce and experienced people now.

Where do we go from here, well you are educated enough estimate. + LCA did suffer a lot from sanctions post nuke test, deduct those years and get the revised timeline.
 
Though I will buy that logic but partially.. Looking at the LCA program it was conceived in the 90s and that time you had a better growth rate than us and you had access to all techs in the world, thanks to uncle Sam and you could have done some thing but you didnt. + your requirement is different than us. You wanted a fighter but we wanted an industry. so dont call it gamble but an informed decision!

About outside help, we didnt want to take outside help at the beginning and I would call it good in way because help can teach you the art but not the science behind it. we struggled and so did LCA.

But just dont measure the outcome with the success of LCA which eventually it will be, but look at what we got today. we have lined up an industry which can produce fibre materials to MFDs to radars to EW suite, I am not adding the design and aerodynamics...So we have achieved our goal to 80% level. we have a set industry, a set workforce and experienced people now.

Where do we go from here, well you are educated enough estimate. + LCA did suffer a lot from sanctions post nuke test, deduct those years and get the revised timeline.

Your Army wanted to replace aging MIGs not the industry. After this many years they are still needing to be replaced and are in large number. It wasn't a good decision not take help from others. You made your need dependent upon RND and in the end you have to take the help which is even worst. In simple words after spending time instead of owning self tech you had to import it. Regarding fibre materials and MFD, radars to some extent you maybe right but it still doesn't give your army the home grown option to replace their aging fleet which was the main requirement for LCA project. In the end we may see LCA inducted in IAF but in lot less numbers just to conclude the project.
 
LCA vs Gripen is like;
ArbaZ vs Federer

Arbaaz_Khan_Launch_Bijan_Produced_BollywoodSargam_talking_378201.jpg



wimb.jpg
 
Looking at the LCA program it was conceived in the 90s

Actually, LCA was conceived in 1969, with development beginning in 1984. 30 years in the making and it's still under development. :-) HAL Tejas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LCA still lacks DSI, a 21st century technology that saw its first application with JF-17 Thunder. :-)

I didn't declare J-15 as the world's most capable carrier fighter jet until it achieved IOC a few days ago, so I don't see the point of this thread comparing a plane that is under development with one that has been operational for decades.
 
Last edited:
Actually it should have because it uses CANARD design BUT:
I have seen Video of Grippen C/D taking off in 14 second. Tejas does it with at least 3.5 to 4 tons in 12 second.
Video July 13 Trials (With 2 x 500 KG bomb and 2 fuel tank and AAM). I do not know about speed.
more ferry range,
How?
Both Plane uses same capacity fuel tank. 2468 KG of Tejas against almost same of Grippen with same engine GE 404 IN 6. Tejas being light must have fuel efficiency advantage.

I saw the video where Grippen landed in a highway.it has well known Short take off capability.as for 12 seconds vs 14 seconds take off,I couldn't say.

you can search about Grippen,its referred that their ferry rangeis slightly greater than Tejas.
 
Tejas development program is a flop show. We must throw it in a dustbin and get back to drawing board.
 
Back
Top Bottom