KapitaanAli
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2017
- Messages
- 2,442
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Compare the specs, but stop comparing the production of these two fighters. PAF was desperate for fighters and thus went ahead with a barebone Blk1, which IAF would never do. With Blk2, PAF had an okay thing, comparable to Mk1, with some shortcomings in avionics. By then, IAF found it wise to have only AESA inductions, and make only a token order for Mk1. This was the right call, as the Bisons are capable enough to take the fight to the adversary and hold fort, until then. On the sidelines, more and more MKI were being built, more than what was being assembled at PAC.
Now, there's Mk1A and Blk3 with similar specs, both at about the same stages of development. This is the most noteworthy point. Blk3 prototype had first flight, and Mk1A prototype is nothing but a modified Mk1.
With Mk2, we'll go one weight class above. And with the naval versions, it's a whole another field.
Meanwhile, India now has the capability and confidence of a competent ecosystem, thanks to the LCA program. Pakistan is decades away from being anything close, but on the right path thanks to China.
Tejas/LCA program is far from being late.
Now, there's Mk1A and Blk3 with similar specs, both at about the same stages of development. This is the most noteworthy point. Blk3 prototype had first flight, and Mk1A prototype is nothing but a modified Mk1.
With Mk2, we'll go one weight class above. And with the naval versions, it's a whole another field.
Meanwhile, India now has the capability and confidence of a competent ecosystem, thanks to the LCA program. Pakistan is decades away from being anything close, but on the right path thanks to China.
Tejas/LCA program is far from being late.
Last edited: