To keep the thread on topic...
Mig 29 was an air superiority with the upgrade it is becoming a potent Mulit role craft... while MKI is already stamped as the best swing role fighter in our inventory.. and we can see MKI configured for Brahmos and Nirbhay ... which makes it the best option for deep strike penetration ... Can you be little more specific where we lag now on ground attacks?
Multi role capable means, that a fighter is able to use A2A and A2G weapons, but that doesn't mean Mig 29, or MKI are strike fighters. They are designed to be air superiority fighters, with high speed and maneuverability for A2A combats in mind. The only real difference that makes a Su 30MK version more useful in the strike role, compared to a Su 35, is the twin seat config. Apart from that the Su 35 has the same payload, the same number of weapon stations, the same weapons, in most cases even the same EW systems.
The changes on MKI are even extra made and taken from early Su 35 prototypes, to make the MK more useful in the A2A role (long range radar, canards and TVC for higher maneuverability to counter the heavier weight)!
Real strike fighters are designed for low level flights, because that makes them hard to detect, that's why the Su 34 has specialised avionics, for low level and terrain following flights unlike MKI. The Su 34 is also a multi role fighter, but clearly designed for strikes, with the additional capability to use A2A weapons as well.
In MMRCA we have EF and the Mig that are designed for air superiority, the F18SH on the other end for strikes, while Gripen NG (to some extend), but mainly the F16 and the Rafale fits perfectly in between.
Mig 27 will be phased out right now and mainly replaced by MKI squads, only 2 squads will remain till 2025 or so. Jags will be upgraded, but mainly for life extention, not to be very capable, when air superiority is achieved they can be useful, but not in a deep strike mission to an area with AWACS and dense SAM threats. That leaves IAF with MKI and only 50 x Mirage 2000s and the MKI as I explained is not a real strike fighter.
Agreed with AWACS across borders getting air superiority is difficult.. but every air force will try for that right??.. They will atleast make sure that enemy's sortie reduces with time
Again, that depends on the situation! In a situation like after Mumbai attacks, when you want to do preemptive strikes on terrorist camps, do you want to fight PAF first right? Even at the begining of a war, you normally try to strike high value targets first, to weaken the enemy as much as possible, like the situation described in the carnegie report as well, with striking airbases to destroy as much AWACS aircrafts and fighters as possible, right on the ground.
LCA and griphen cant be compared.. and secondly what make you feel LCA is a mistake??
Look at it unbiased, then you will understad they offer pretty much the same and where the difference to a real MMRCA is:
Gripen C / Tejas MK1 / Gripen NG / Tejas MK2 / Rafale F3+
Empty weight: 6.6t / 6.5t/ 7.1t / ~7t / 9.5t
Internal fuel: 2.4t / 2.5t / 3.4t / 3.x t / 4.7t
MTOW: 14t / 13.5t / 16.5 / 15.x t / 24.5t
Payload: 5.3t / 4t / 6t / 5.x t /9.5t
Weapon stations: 7+1 / 7+1 / 7 or 9 (depending on config) + 1 / 9 or even 11 + 1 (depending on design of the new wings) / 9 + 2 (12 + 2 possible, depending on config)
Dry thrust: 54kN / 55kN / 62kN / 62kN / 100kN
AB thrust: 80kN / 85kN / 98kN / 98kN / 150 kN
Radar: MMR / MMR / AESA / AESA / AESA
IFR: Yes / No / Yes / Yes / Yes
IRST: No / No / Yes / Yes / Yes
HMS: No / Yes / Yes / Yes / ?
As you can see, there is hardly something that the NG offers more, that Tejas MK2 can't and on the other hand the Rafale still offers a clear difference.
Btw, I didn't said LCA is a mistake, but to choose such a light engine, with a heavy class engine instead, it would be in the F16 / J10 weight class.
Sorry for the long post here, but I couldn't send you a PM.
