Don't talk yourself out of a slow, careful read; stick with it.
If I could summarise the article, at the risk of incurring the serious displeasure of CFD cats like Nilgiri who earn obscene sums of money out of computer simulations of - oh, this, that and the other, shall we say? - this is what it is:
- When they (ADA, HAL) were looking hard at the original design of the Tejas, the flying Mk 1, there was such a lot of noise about the in-between fighter, the medium-weight multi-role aircraft that was supposed to slot in between the light point interceptor that the Tejas was intended to be, and the monstrous bouncer in the bar SU 30 MKI. They decided to tweak the design just a little bit more, and approximate what the Air Force wanted in the medium weight aircraft.
- They did this by lengthening the plane, and adding close-coupled canards. Note the close-coupled; this means that the canards do two things - they significantly work with other design features to increase lift, WITHOUT adding drag, and they also offer an additional control surface, that helps with manoeuvrability. Other planes that use canards but use loose-coupled, or long-coupled canards, don't get the additional lift, just the manoeuvrability (the Eurofighter Typhoon is an example).
- Lengthening the plane was done by adding two extra sections (they've called these plugs) to the fuselage, both ahead of the wing-root, so both keeping the point of balance forward.
- So if we get additional lift, without additional drag, that means that if the weight does not increase significantly, and the engine thrust is the same. the thrust to weight is greater, making for a faster aircraft and a more manoeuvrable one.
- We also get to carry more weight, so more air to air missiles, more ground attack missiles, more stand-off missiles - in short, you get a whole new set of pyrotechnics. So they looked smug and added hard points.
I hope this makes better sense now.
No need to be sarcastic; all that does is to show that you haven't bothered to read carefully, but just skimmed through to catch something to go 'Gotcha!' with. Not very impressive, just another ill-mannered fan boy.
Read this, please:
What is more, MWF brochure indicates that all this additional capability comes with no additional empty weight. This optimistic estimate probably arises from the optimization of airframe structures in the second design iteration of LCA. Realistically though, some increase in the empty weight can be expected. Even with some weight gain, MWF will retain its exceptionally low wing loading.
There is no weight penalty expected between the F404 and the F414 that cannot be compensated by optimising the structure.
That should be clear enough. If any further clarification is needed, do feel free to ask, but without the smug sarcasm.
@Nilgiri
I've dropped you into the deep end, now everyone will be trying to find out what you do to earn your filthy lucre. What's a friend for, other than placing a hand at a strategic location on your back, and exerting a precisely-calculated amount of pressure at the exact moment of transition from balance to imbalance?