As an addendum to this thread and the claims, one thing must be kept in mind; the LCA was designed around the M2K and a lot of efforts went into replicating the best of the M2K in its instantaneous whilst avoiding the pitfalls of the delta. Once cannot just shove under the carpet the efforts of certain teams at ADA including that of CLAW and others.
However, its wing is still based on a design that was tested in tunnels by the swedes years and years ago( 1953 to be exact). That wing design had its advantages in the transonic and supersonic regimes but suffered from loss of lift; something that required the addition of canards to provide an earlier stalling surface that would avoid that issue. Out of this came the Saab Viggen.
What the LCA team did was something that SAAB could not accomplish back in the 1950s, take advantage of the cranked delta design that allows good supersonic performance but poor sustained turned performance by a basic law of aerodynamics and aircraft design known as Aspect Ratio.
Aspect ratio means that the aircraft produces lesser lift at comparable angles of attack to a conventional wing. The M2K(and LCA) were designed to offset it by using an unstable design. In layman terms, they naturally want to pitch up which means that the aircraft does not need to use its control surface to that extent to create that AoA and hence reduces the massive drag that is caused by using control surfaces.
Hence, the M2k And LCA in general can achieve quick AoA without that drag incurred via control surfaces, but they STILL suffer from the higher induced drag to produce the same lift that say a fighter like the F-16 produces.
So unless the author is suggesting that the LCA has managed to beat the laws of aerodynamics and has unlimited sustained performance even with these basic aerodynamic limitations; then it comes to the conclusion that the author is FALSIFYING or DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the difference between sustained and instantaneous turned rate.
The closest analogy to the LCA is the M2k, and if one is to look at the M2K performance parameters.. one can gauge those of the LCA easily. Dassault would hush up about the sustained turn rates for the M2k when compared to the F-16, and it seems the author has plainly tried to pass off instantaneous for sustained.
In end, if all was so wonderful for the LCA in its flight regime.. the ADA would not be trying to add on the manoeuvring leading edge extensions.. whose main reason for existence to allow the LCA better lift after it loses energy based on the laws of aerodynamics that the author has broken supposedly or is mistaken about.
At the end, we have
NO REASON TO BELIEVE OR CARE TO DISPROVE what the author says simply because of his nationality and more obvious spurious nature of data used (which the author admits to) in trying to show these figures.
There is no doubt that the LCA is a fine fighter, but not some perfect dogfighter that the author is trying to show it as or pass of the studies as.
I would like to advice you to read the article completely. For any doubt and query pls contact the author of the article.
NO, YOU POSTED THE ARTICLE. HENCE, TO CLEAR UP HIS DOUBTS AND ACTUALLY PROVE IT.. it is imperative on YOU to contact the author, present his credentials and have him show his data and calculation methods.
Till then, and especially the casual way the author seems to have gone about his studies regardless of the software used; there is no reason for them to go and try and disprove what the author himself states is unsuited for accurate analysis.
