HAL LCA Tejas: Updates, News & Discussions

[MirageBlue]

I humbly apologize for not being able to answer you as quickly as possible and even though it is usually clear to everyone, I cannot explain in more detail where your thinking error is, because there are people who don't just hang around on the internet all day spreading BS and fan theories, but who work or do other more important things and quite frankly, I was out with my wife for the last two days to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary.

So just take it easy and "leave the church in the village" as we say in Germany to calm down ... there are more important things than you.

Anyway, once again: Yes, Tejas is too late, after 40 years of development, to introduce a 4th generation fighter that is too small and less capable in modern aerial battle fields against the main opponent (aka China) in homeopathic doses is ridiculous and now to boast that as a jewel of Indian manufacturing art, a high point of the 4th generation development and on a par with Typhoon, Rafale and Co is ridiculous, actually just embarrassing when all the big potential opponents are talking about 5th generation, in larger numbers than the IAF has its Tejas and now people are babbling about Tejas Mk.2 will in X years being what the IAF actually wanted; so de facto about 50 years plus too late.

And now to the details: Of course it was to be expected that you would ignore the points of criticism and instead focus on the weak points of my posts - you also didn't look for spelling & grammar mistakes in my answer - or jump to points that weren't explicitly explained.

But again for you ... yes, others too are not getting rid of 4th generation fighters either, but at least they are not planning new ones like India and "selling" them as the "gold standard", and also yes, of course I was only basing my argument on India vs China, because Pakistan is irrelevant here even more so since you and your homies constantly want to measure yourself against China; as such I thought this was clear... and finally, yes, if you count Tejas in the class of the good old J-10A, because it is the closest to that in terms of technology apart from the weight class, then the PLAAF is actually ready to replace this type.

But be that as it may, that was probably too much text again, too difficult to follow and you surely are again jumping into the discussion of the definition of generation, try to explain the not yet ready Uttam AESA is a generation better than ... but to be honest I don't give a damn about that either.

What a lot of text with so little real detail.

You clearly have no clue about the IAF and so I would ask someone like you to refrain from making sweeping observations about an Air Force you don't understand or follow closely. I rarely speak about the PLAAF because I don't follow it as closely and don't want to appear to be a fool by talking about a subject I am not very well versed in. I think you too should do that.

- The LCA Tejas was from the start designed as a replacement for MiG-21s because in the sub-continental scenario, light fighters make sense.
- Why do light fighters make sense in the sub-continent and not in places with huge airspaces like Russia or China? Because our air bases are closer by, the distances for many of the Forward Air Bases from the border isn't very long and most importantly, they offer good cost versus capability ratios.
- If you had ever studied the history of air power in the sub-continent which you haven't, you'd see how close to the border IAF and PAF bases tend to be.
- IAF still has more air bases in the hinterland that are farther away from the border where the longer range and heavier fighters are based, for e.g. Pune, Gwalior, Hindon, Sulur, Thanjavur, etc.
- Gripen A/B/C/D are in the same weight class as the Tejas and are considered perfectly adequate by the Flygvapnet to meet their air superiority and strike needs. Despite having a vast airspace with fewer big bases, they use the dispersed basing methodology to allow for any scenario where their jets need to be moved during combat to areas closer to where the action is and be survivable.
- Talking all the time about Tejas being too small is silly when it has In-flight refueling capability for missions that need longer range or flight time.
- Since you're basically claiming that all light fighters are limited in capability and hence not good enough to deal with
- To deal with PLAAF, the IAF has nearly 250 Su-30MKIs and 36 Rafales plus 50 odd Mirage-2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. Almost all of which are larger, longer ranged, can be refueled in mid-air

I humbly apologize for not being able to answer you as quickly as possible and even though it is usually clear to everyone, I cannot explain in more detail where your thinking error is, because there are people who don't just hang around on the internet all day spreading BS and fan theories, but who work or do other more important things and quite frankly, I was out with my wife for the last two days to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary.

So just take it easy and "leave the church in the village" as we say in Germany to calm down ... there are more important things than you.

Anyway, once again: Yes, Tejas is too late, after 40 years of development, to introduce a 4th generation fighter that is too small and less capable in modern aerial battle fields against the main opponent (aka China) in homeopathic doses is ridiculous and now to boast that as a jewel of Indian manufacturing art, a high point of the 4th generation development and on a par with Typhoon, Rafale and Co is ridiculous, actually just embarrassing when all the big potential opponents are talking about 5th generation, in larger numbers than the IAF has its Tejas and now people are babbling about Tejas Mk.2 will in X years being what the IAF actually wanted; so de facto about 50 years plus too late.

And now to the details: Of course it was to be expected that you would ignore the points of criticism and instead focus on the weak points of my posts - you also didn't look for spelling & grammar mistakes in my answer - or jump to points that weren't explicitly explained.

But again for you ... yes, others too are not getting rid of 4th generation fighters either, but at least they are not planning new ones like India and "selling" them as the "gold standard", and also yes, of course I was only basing my argument on India vs China, because Pakistan is irrelevant here even more so since you and your homies constantly want to measure yourself against China; as such I thought this was clear... and finally, yes, if you count Tejas in the class of the good old J-10A, because it is the closest to that in terms of technology apart from the weight class, then the PLAAF is actually ready to replace this type.

But be that as it may, that was probably too much text again, too difficult to follow and you surely are again jumping into the discussion of the definition of generation, try to explain the not yet ready Uttam AESA is a generation better than ... but to be honest I don't give a damn about that either.

Apart from the fact that you cleverly didn't answer many of the questions posed (for e.g. which clean sheet naval fighter has China successfully designed and landed on an aircraft carrier), I will attempt one last time to engage in a detailed discussion with you. Else it's just a waste of my time and you can continue with your rants and ravings since you seem to have more of a gripe against Indians in general, based on what some of the younger posters boast about.

I also don't seek your validation on the Tejas or how good it is. That validation comes from the users of the type, rather than so called OSINT analysts with no skin in the game. Your opinion on the Tejas hence, doesn't really bother me. So if I sense that no amount of detailed explanation on the capability and need for the Tejas can get you to understand and you just continue with the vague, generalisations, I'll just leave it at that and avoid wasting my time in the future.

You clearly have no clue about the IAF and so I would ask someone like you to refrain from making sweeping observations about an Air Force you don't understand or follow closely. I rarely speak about the PLAAF because I don't follow it as closely and don't want to appear to be a fool by talking about a subject I am not very well versed in. I think you too should do that.

- The LCA Tejas was from the start designed as a replacement for MiG-21s because in the sub-continental scenario, light fighters make sense.

- Why do light fighters make sense in the sub-continent and not in places with huge airspaces like Russia or China? Because our air bases are closer by, the distances for many of the Forward Air Bases from the border isn't very long and most importantly, they offer good cost versus capability ratios.

- If you had ever studied the history of air power in the sub-continent which you haven't, you'd see how close to the border IAF and PAF bases tend to be.

- IAF still has more air bases in the hinterland that are farther away from the border where the longer range and heavier fighters are based, for e.g. Pune, Gwalior, Hindon, Sulur, Thanjavur, etc.

- Gripen A/B/C/D are in the same weight class as the Tejas and are considered perfectly adequate by the Flygvapnet to meet their air superiority and strike needs. Despite having a vast airspace with fewer big bases, they use the dispersed basing methodology to allow for any scenario where their jets need to be moved during combat to areas closer to where the action is and be survivable.

- Talking all the time about Tejas Mk1A being too small is silly when it has In-flight refueling capability for missions that need longer range or flight time. If needed, it can fly missions lasting several hours with multiple mid-air refueling tank ups.

- Since you're basically claiming that all light fighters are limited in capability and hence not good enough to deal with bigger fighters, I want to understand what your thinking of air combat really is.

A fighter that has a small RCS (which the Tejas does due to it's size and RAM treatment), can spot a target at very long ranges with good sensors/datalink (which the Tejas Mk1 can and Mk1A will do even better with AESA radar) and can fire missiles at really long ranges (which the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A can at ~100 km with Astra Mk1 and at 160 km with Astra Mk2) is going to be a threat in any scenario, against any opponent, especially if it is backed by AWACS, tankers and EW/ ELINT assets, has good situational awareness and has well trained pilots.

I'm still looking for a decent explanation of what you think is wrong with the Tejas, just to know that it's not just due to bias but based on rational engineering logic. And don't say it's because it's a light fighter because that is just plain silly. It's range and payload are more than adequate for most of the missions the IAF needs it to perform from the air bases where it will replace the MiG-21 Bison and MiG-27s that were retired. Given your previous statements about the Tejas Mk1A, I actually don't think you know much about the Tejas Mk1A at all.

-The other big adversary Air Force we have is primarily composed of light fighters like the Mirage 3/5, F-7PG and JF-17 with just 100 odd medium weight F-16s and J-10CPs in that category.

-And if the PAF is not looking at 4th gen fighters then what is all this talk about possibility of producing J-10CP in Pakistan? Or even acquiring them off the shelf? Remember they have to retire 150 Mirage 3/5 and F-7PGs in the next 10 years by when they'll be finding it very hard to keep these obsolete fleets airworthy. And what about their JF-17 Block 1 and 2, many of which are approaching 17-18 years in service?

-Are you suggesting that somehow Pakistan will become one of the wealthiest nations on earth and be able to afford 250 5th gen fighters in the next 20 years?? They're going to the IMF for USD 3 billion bailouts for God's sake!

- To deal with PLAAF threat, the IAF has nearly 250 Su-30MKIs and 36 Rafales plus 50 odd Mirage-2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. That's ~400 4th gen fighters. All of these are larger, longer ranged, can be refueled in mid-air for longer endurance and range.

-The IAF then needs the 200 odd Tejas Mk1A fighters to be able to take on the PAF threat, which is still mostly composed of the F-16 A/B MLUs and 18 F-16 Block 52s. And they're perfectly capable of doing so.

- But of course it doesn't work that way, given that the IAF has to be able to tackle the PAF as well. But the PLAAF has the Japanese and Taiwanese theaters as well that it has to be able to handle, so it has limits on how many fighters it can base in Tibet against the IAF.

- With an eye on the PLAAF, the Tejas Mk2 is being developed as a bigger, Mirage-2000 class of fighter, and it is the reason that the IAF chose the Rafale as the MRCA, despite the Gripen E being a cheaper fighter to acquire and operate.

- AMCA was being designed with a careful eye on the IAF's need to be able to match the PLAAF.

 

[Circadian Rhythm]

What a lot of text with so little real detail.

You clearly have no clue about the IAF and so I would ask someone like you to refrain from making sweeping observations about an Air Force you don't understand or follow closely. I rarely speak about the PLAAF because I don't follow it as closely and don't want to appear to be a fool by talking about a subject I am not very well versed in. I think you too should do that.

- The LCA Tejas was from the start designed as a replacement for MiG-21s because in the sub-continental scenario, light fighters make sense.
- Why do light fighters make sense in the sub-continent and not in places with huge airspaces like Russia or China? Because our air bases are closer by, the distances for many of the Forward Air Bases from the border isn't very long and most importantly, they offer good cost versus capability ratios.
- If you had ever studied the history of air power in the sub-continent which you haven't, you'd see how close to the border IAF and PAF bases tend to be.
- IAF still has more air bases in the hinterland that are farther away from the border where the longer range and heavier fighters are based, for e.g. Pune, Gwalior, Hindon, Sulur, Thanjavur, etc.
- Gripen A/B/C/D are in the same weight class as the Tejas and are considered perfectly adequate by the Flygvapnet to meet their air superiority and strike needs. Despite having a vast airspace with fewer big bases, they use the dispersed basing methodology to allow for any scenario where their jets need to be moved during combat to areas closer to where the action is and be survivable.
- Talking all the time about Tejas being too small is silly when it has In-flight refueling capability for missions that need longer range or flight time.
- Since you're basically claiming that all light fighters are limited in capability and hence not good enough to deal with
- To deal with PLAAF, the IAF has nearly 250 Su-30MKIs and 36 Rafales plus 50 odd Mirage-2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. Almost all of which are larger, longer ranged, can be refueled in mid-air


Apart from the fact that you cleverly didn't answer many of the questions posed (for e.g. which clean sheet naval fighter has China successfully designed and landed on an aircraft carrier), I will attempt one last time to engage in a detailed discussion with you. Else it's just a waste of my time and you can continue with your rants and ravings since you seem to have more of a gripe against Indians in general, based on what some of the younger posters boast about.

I also don't seek your validation on the Tejas or how good it is. That validation comes from the users of the type, rather than so called OSINT analysts with no skin in the game. Your opinion on the Tejas hence, doesn't really bother me. So if I sense that no amount of detailed explanation on the capability and need for the Tejas can get you to understand and you just continue with the vague, generalisations, I'll just leave it at that and avoid wasting my time in the future.

You clearly have no clue about the IAF and so I would ask someone like you to refrain from making sweeping observations about an Air Force you don't understand or follow closely. I rarely speak about the PLAAF because I don't follow it as closely and don't want to appear to be a fool by talking about a subject I am not very well versed in. I think you too should do that.

- The LCA Tejas was from the start designed as a replacement for MiG-21s because in the sub-continental scenario, light fighters make sense.

- Why do light fighters make sense in the sub-continent and not in places with huge airspaces like Russia or China? Because our air bases are closer by, the distances for many of the Forward Air Bases from the border isn't very long and most importantly, they offer good cost versus capability ratios.

- If you had ever studied the history of air power in the sub-continent which you haven't, you'd see how close to the border IAF and PAF bases tend to be.

- IAF still has more air bases in the hinterland that are farther away from the border where the longer range and heavier fighters are based, for e.g. Pune, Gwalior, Hindon, Sulur, Thanjavur, etc.

- Gripen A/B/C/D are in the same weight class as the Tejas and are considered perfectly adequate by the Flygvapnet to meet their air superiority and strike needs. Despite having a vast airspace with fewer big bases, they use the dispersed basing methodology to allow for any scenario where their jets need to be moved during combat to areas closer to where the action is and be survivable.

- Talking all the time about Tejas Mk1A being too small is silly when it has In-flight refueling capability for missions that need longer range or flight time. If needed, it can fly missions lasting several hours with multiple mid-air refueling tank ups.

- Since you're basically claiming that all light fighters are limited in capability and hence not good enough to deal with bigger fighters, I want to understand what your thinking of air combat really is.

A fighter that has a small RCS (which the Tejas does due to it's size and RAM treatment), can spot a target at very long ranges with good sensors/datalink (which the Tejas Mk1 can and Mk1A will do even better with AESA radar) and can fire missiles at really long ranges (which the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A can at ~100 km with Astra Mk1 and at 160 km with Astra Mk2) is going to be a threat in any scenario, against any opponent, especially if it is backed by AWACS, tankers and EW/ ELINT assets, has good situational awareness and has well trained pilots.

I'm still looking for a decent explanation of what you think is wrong with the Tejas, just to know that it's not just due to bias but based on rational engineering logic. And don't say it's because it's a light fighter because that is just plain silly. It's range and payload are more than adequate for most of the missions the IAF needs it to perform from the air bases where it will replace the MiG-21 Bison and MiG-27s that were retired. Given your previous statements about the Tejas Mk1A, I actually don't think you know much about the Tejas Mk1A at all.

-The other big adversary Air Force we have is primarily composed of light fighters like the Mirage 3/5, F-7PG and JF-17 with just 100 odd medium weight F-16s and J-10CPs in that category.

-And if the PAF is not looking at 4th gen fighters then what is all this talk about possibility of producing J-10CP in Pakistan? Or even acquiring them off the shelf? Remember they have to retire 150 Mirage 3/5 and F-7PGs in the next 10 years by when they'll be finding it very hard to keep these obsolete fleets airworthy. And what about their JF-17 Block 1 and 2, many of which are approaching 17-18 years in service?

-Are you suggesting that somehow Pakistan will become one of the wealthiest nations on earth and be able to afford 250 5th gen fighters in the next 20 years?? They're going to the IMF for USD 3 billion bailouts for God's sake!

- To deal with PLAAF threat, the IAF has nearly 250 Su-30MKIs and 36 Rafales plus 50 odd Mirage-2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. That's ~400 4th gen fighters. All of these are larger, longer ranged, can be refueled in mid-air for longer endurance and range.

-The IAF then needs the 200 odd Tejas Mk1A fighters to be able to take on the PAF threat, which is still mostly composed of the F-16 A/B MLUs and 18 F-16 Block 52s. And they're perfectly capable of doing so.

- But of course it doesn't work that way, given that the IAF has to be able to tackle the PAF as well. But the PLAAF has the Japanese and Taiwanese theaters as well that it has to be able to handle, so it has limits on how many fighters it can base in Tibet against the IAF.

- With an eye on the PLAAF, the Tejas Mk2 is being developed as a bigger, Mirage-2000 class of fighter, and it is the reason that the IAF chose the Rafale as the MRCA, despite the Gripen E being a cheaper fighter to acquire and operate.

- AMCA was being designed with a careful eye on the IAF's need to be able to match the PLAAF.

Tejas Mk 1 and Mk 1A are designed for 24 /7 CAPs

They are a Replacement for MIG 21

You cannot do CAPs with Sukhoi 30 and Rafales On a 24/7 basis otherwise you are only wasting Airframes and Engine Life

Obviously a Single Engine will have Range limitations but if it is carrying only Air to Air Missiles and Drop Tanks ,it can carry out a Long Range Patrol

For instance in 2019 , and 2020 there were heightened alerts along Both Frontiers and Daily Scrambles

 

[MirageBlue]

Tejas Mk 1 and Mk 1A are designed for 24 /7 CAPs

They are a Replacement for MIG 21

You cannot do CAPs with Sukhoi 30 and Rafales On a 24/7 basis otherwise you are only wasting Airframes and Engine Life

Obviously a Single Engine will have Range limitations but if it is carrying only Air to Air Missiles and Drop Tanks ,it can carry out a Long Range Patrol

For instance in 2019 , and 2020 there were heightened alerts along Both Frontiers and Daily Scrambles

They are not designed just for CAP. There is no such thing actually.

The basis of the Tejas design was to have a footprint as small as the MiG-21. Meaning to be able to use blast pens and hardened shelters at air bases that have had MiG-21s for decades and were designed for it's size. And be on Operational Readiness Platform (ORP) at all of the forward bases where it is based and be able to scramble whenever required, as well as to be able to take on strike roles when required.

Tejas is designed as a multi-role fighter, not just for CAP (which is just 1 mission).

Of course, the operating cost in terms of fuel, no. of maintenance hours for each hour of flying is a metric that every air force worries about because they have to foot the bill for these operating costs. In those terms, reliable light fighters are going to work out more economical than big heavy fighters like the Su-30MKI or even medium weight twin engine ones like the Rafale.

High availability is something that even Rafales can provide, but at a higher cost. And a Su-30MKI can fly much longer on station on CAP and hence that can work out economical as well (since it is landings that cause the most stress on airframes and airframe life itself is measured in terms of number of landings as well as flight hours).

 

[Deino]

What a lot of text with so little real detail.

You clearly have no clue about the IAF and so I would ask someone like you to refrain from making sweeping observations about an Air Force you don't understand or follow closely. I rarely speak about the PLAAF because I don't follow it as closely and don't want to appear to be a fool by talking about a subject I am not very well versed in. I think you too should do that.

....

Oh well, I think we simply don't match ... and maybe never won't since - and that's probably the point we both should agree on - I see this type as generally too late, no longer fitting for the IAF and regardless all achievements, a failure besides leading the path for India's aviation industry to hopefully do it better next time, as such in that case, I'm the "guy with the wine-glass half empty" while on the other side you are happy with any positive result & achievements. explain in length why it is per your or any Indian's understanding a great success and so on even if I rate such achievements like being able to land & take-off from an aircraft carrier is irrelevant since it never will do so operationally and CHina's J-35 which is surely late by that definition will be more successful in the end since it is a whole generation ahead and will be used in numbers at a time, you are still dreaming about AMCA let alone an operational indigenous naval fighter; as such you are surely the "guy with the wine-glass half full".

Anyway. I appreciate your attempt to explain and I hope you don't mind that I cannot go into the same detail as you may likely want, since today I'm still at work and tomorrow late we are leaving for the holidays and my wife will kill me - so no next 25 years - when I stick too long on the PC now. I added my reply directly to your post as a short comment:


- The LCA Tejas was from the start designed as a replacement for MiG-21s because in the sub-continental scenario, light fighters make sense. ... exactly the same like the J-10A, therefore my comparison!
- Why do light fighters make sense in the sub-continent and not in places with huge airspaces like Russia or China? Because our air bases are closer by, the distances for many of the Forward Air Bases from the border isn't very long and most importantly, they offer good cost versus capability ratios. ... in that case I do not agree, since its rage & weapons load is insufficient and the IAF lacks tanker
- If you had ever studied the history of air power in the sub-continent which you haven't, you'd see how close to the border IAF and PAF bases tend to be. ... again, irrelevant to the main opponent Chin, but I agree, Pakistan in a different issue
- IAF still has more air bases in the hinterland that are farther away from the border where the longer range and heavier fighters are based, for e.g. Pune, Gwalior, Hindon, Sulur, Thanjavur, etc. ... see reply 2
- Gripen A/B/C/D are in the same weight class as the Tejas and are considered perfectly adequate by the Flygvapnet to meet their air superiority and strike needs. Despite having a vast airspace with fewer big bases, they use the dispersed basing methodology to allow for any scenario where their jets need to be moved during combat to areas closer to where the action is and be survivable. ... yes, "perfectly adequate" for Sweden but IMO not for India versus China
- Talking all the time about Tejas being too small is silly when it has In-flight refueling capability for missions that need longer range or flight time. ... it is not when the IAF lacks sufficient numbers of tanker
- Since you're basically claiming that all light fighters are limited in capability and hence not good enough to deal with ... yes, that's why the PLAAF never introduced the JF-17 not even to stimulate exports or as an adversary aircraft to play the blue force (like the USAF or USN uses F-5) and why the USAF never got the F-20.
- To deal with PLAAF, the IAF has nearly 250 Su-30MKIs and 36 Rafales plus 50 odd Mirage-2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. Almost all of which are larger, longer ranged, can be refueled in mid-air ... again, the MKIs are no match for any J-16 or even J-10 and only a part of the fleet (80 ?) will only be updated in several years, . Mirage 2000 and MiG-29s are in no way relevant against any PLAAF fighter and the Rafales - indeed a most formidable asset - are still too few. And again, the IAF has how many tankers in service for this vast fleet you mention?

- I'm still looking for a decent explanation of what you think is wrong with the Tejas, just to know that it's not just due to bias but based on rational engineering logic. And don't say it's because it's a light fighter because that is just plain silly. It's range and payload are more than adequate for most of the missions the IAF needs it to perform from the air bases where it will replace the MiG-21 Bison and MiG-27s that were retired. Given your previous statements about the Tejas Mk1A, I actually don't think you know much about the Tejas Mk1A at all.
In fact I have nothing against it I even wrote an almost ready for print report on it for the WAPJ back then! It is indeed a great fighter, a most interesting design, has an even more interesting history and future ... but, and that's the point! Times were changing and so did requirements. The PLAAF itself almost halted J-10C production since for a huge country like China similar to India and even more so against its main opponent (aka China or India vice versa) it is too short-legged and limited in either weapons load or range. As such, regardless how fine Tejas is, it is too late and no longer adequate for almost any strategic role to play in IAF inventory and that's - besides all technical issues and delays - the main reason why its numbers are still too small. The Tejas Mk.1 in fact is what the Tejas should always have been, even if IMO a slightly larger type with a bigger/ better engine a class above the F414 would be an even better choice to develop a true F-16/J-10C competitor, but again it comes too late.

-The other big adversary Air Force we have is primarily composed of light fighters like the Mirage 3/5, F-7PG and JF-17 with just 100 odd medium weight F-16s and J-10CPs in that category. ... again, Pakistan is not the point and against the PAF all Indian assets are more than enough!

-And if the PAF is not looking at 4th gen fighters then what is all this talk about possibility of producing J-10CP in Pakistan? Or even acquiring them off the shelf? Remember they have to retire 150 Mirage 3/5 and F-7PGs in the next 10 years by when they'll be finding it very hard to keep these obsolete fleets airworthy. And what about their JF-17 Block 1 and 2, many of which are approaching 17-18 years in service? ... again, Pakistan is not the point

-Are you suggesting that somehow Pakistan will become one of the wealthiest nations on earth and be able to afford 250 5th gen fighters in the next 20 years?? They're going to the IMF for USD 3 billion bailouts for God's sake! ... again, Pakistan is not the point and if you follow my posts in the PAF section, I'm probably the most-hated man in this section since some fan-boys there are at the same level of delusion like some fan-boys here!

- To deal with PLAAF threat, the IAF has nearly 250 Su-30MKIs and 36 Rafales plus 50 odd Mirage-2000s and 60 odd MiG-29s. That's ~400 4th gen fighters. All of these are larger, longer ranged, can be refueled in mid-air for longer endurance and range. ... see reply above! The MKIs are no match for any J-16 or even J-10 and only a part of the fleet (80 ?) will only be updated in several years, . Mirage 2000 and MiG-29s are in no way relevant against any PLAAF fighter and the Rafales - indeed a most formidable asset - are still too few. And again, the IAF has how many tankers in service for this vast fleet you mention?

-The IAF then needs the 200 odd Tejas Mk1A fighters to be able to take on the PAF threat, which is still mostly composed of the F-16 A/B MLUs and 18 F-16 Block 52s. And they're perfectly capable of doing so. ... agreed

- But of course it doesn't work that way, given that the IAF has to be able to tackle the PAF as well. But the PLAAF has the Japanese and Taiwanese theaters as well that it has to be able to handle, so it has limits on how many fighters it can base in Tibet against the IAF. ... agreed

- With an eye on the PLAAF, the Tejas Mk2 is being developed as a bigger, Mirage-2000 class of fighter, and it is the reason that the IAF chose the Rafale as the MRCA, despite the Gripen E being a cheaper fighter to acquire and operate. ... agreed, but again see reply above! IMO - and I know we won't agree - it comes too late: rollout now not being expected until late 2026 or early 2027 and the first test flight now not expected to occur until 2028 ... flight testing surely again at least 5 years before hand over to the IAF and so we have almost 2033-2035??

- AMCA was being designed with a careful eye on the IAF's need to be able to match the PLAAF. ... agreed, but when will it come in numbers and will everything be better this time?

 

[silicon0000]

LCA Tejas: US Shoots India In The Foot By Sanctioning Russia Resulting In Mk-1A Engine Delay: OPED

Atamnirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) was to receive its first locally developed LCA Mk-1A fighter in February 2024, but HAL wasn’t able to get the fighter—the pride of the Indian Defence Industry—airborne until March. HAL was to deliver 2 fighters by March 31, 2024, and 18 fighters by March...

www.eurasiantimes.com

LCA Tejas: US Shoots India In The Foot By Sanctioning Russia Resulting In Mk-1A Engine Delay: OPED​

Not a reliable source but article did give some good insight about engine delay issue.

 

[Deino]

LCA Tejas: US Shoots India In The Foot By Sanctioning Russia Resulting In Mk-1A Engine Delay: OPED

Atamnirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) was to receive its first locally developed LCA Mk-1A fighter in February 2024, but HAL wasn’t able to get the fighter—the pride of the Indian Defence Industry—airborne until March. HAL was to deliver 2 fighters by March 31, 2024, and 18 fighters by March...

www.eurasiantimes.com

LCA Tejas: US Shoots India In The Foot By Sanctioning Russia Resulting In Mk-1A Engine Delay: OPED​

Not a reliable source but article did give some good insight about engine delay issue.

No, an author who was most likely lurking around here and who was reading @Pataliputra's BS and thought, "hey, a nice title to make up a story"!

 

[silicon0000]

No, an author who was most likely lurking around here and who was reading @Pataliputra's BS and thought, "hey, a nice title to make up a story"!

Doesn't matter who is the writer as I already mentioned "Not a reliable source but article did give some good insight about engine delay issue." and Yes, it does offer some insight. Due to imposed restrictions, the availability of raw materials such as titanium and nickel from Russia and China has been hindered, causing numerous supply chain issues currently. These challenges are likely to persist for some time in the future.

Just ignore Tejas BS in it.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Doesn't matter who is the writer as I already mentioned "Not a reliable source but article did give some good insight about engine delay issue." and Yes, it does offer some insight. Due to imposed restrictions, the availability of raw materials such as titanium and nickel from Russia and China has been hindered, causing numerous supply chain issues currently. These challenges are likely to persist for some time in the future.

Just ignore Tejas BS in it.

USA is hesitant to supply engines for the Tejas because it will be deployed on the Pakistan border. However, they are also concerned about potentially losing billions of dollars from selling 2,000 engines to India over the next 10-15 years, along with additional revenue from maintenance and upgrades required by HAL.

 

[silicon0000]

USA is hesitant to supply engines for the Tejas because it will be deployed on the Pakistan border. However, they are also concerned about potentially losing billions of dollars from selling 2,000 engines to India over the next 10-15 years, along with additional revenue from maintenance and upgrades required by HAL.

Indians are big fan of conspiracy theories. Those Indian who think US is not supplying engine because it will kill F16 Sales as Tejas are much more superior to F16, they can live in their delusion. Funny thing is that these delusion people use to think they can easily get F35 without any restriction as India has money and US need them for containing China and now they are at bottom and crying that US is not supplying them engine.

In reality, This is simply a supply chain delay issue and is not specific to India and will persist for some time and India has to live with it as India has no alternative plan in place.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Indians are big fan of conspiracy theories. Those Indian who think US is not supplying engine because it will kill F16 Sales as Tejas are much more superior to F16, they can live in their delusion. Funny thing is that these delusion people use to think they can easily get F35 without any restriction as India has money and US need them for containing China and now they are at bottom and crying that US is not supplying them engine.

In reality, This is simply a supply chain delay issue and is not specific to India and will persist for some time and India has to live with it as India has no alternative plan in place.

India can buy F-35, but cannot use it against Pakistan because it’s a very complicated machine that requires US permission to operate. Additionally, it requires infrastructure that India currently lacks. However, if India can reverse-engineer the F-35 after purchasing 20 of them, then it might be worth the investment.

 

[Yasser76]

India can buy F-35, but cannot use it against Pakistan because it’s a very complicated machine that requires US permission to operate. Additionally, it requires infrastructure that India currently lacks. However, if India can reverse-engineer the F-35 after purchasing 20 of them, then it might be worth the investment.

The prize for the dumbest post this month?

 

[silicon0000]

India can buy F-35, but cannot use it against Pakistan because it’s a very complicated machine that requires US permission to operate. Additionally, it requires infrastructure that India currently lacks. However, if India can reverse-engineer the F-35 after purchasing 20 of them, then it might be worth the investment.

India can buy F-35, but cannot use it against Pakistan because it’s a very complicated machine that requires US permission to operate. - That is called strings/conditions/compromises etc which comes with US goodies and the question is, Is India ready to accept compromise packages required by US time to time?

Additionally, it requires infrastructure that India currently lacks. - Every new platform require this so what's the issue? Or do you referring going away from Russian weapons completely? If that's the case then yes that also included in compromise packages.

However, if India can reverse-engineer the F-35 after purchasing 20 of them, then it might be worth the investment. - Here Yasser is right, this statement do qualify fully for the prize of the dumbest post of this month. (Sorry, I can't stop myself after reading it, don't get offended).

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

India can buy F-35, but cannot use it against Pakistan because it’s a very complicated machine that requires US permission to operate. - That is called strings/conditions/compromises etc which comes with US goodies and the question is, Is India ready to accept compromise packages required by US time to time?

Additionally, it requires infrastructure that India currently lacks. - Every new platform require this so what's the issue? Or do you referring going away from Russian weapons completely? If that's the case then yes that also included in compromise packages.

However, if India can reverse-engineer the F-35 after purchasing 20 of them, then it might be worth the investment. - Here Yasser is right, this statement do qualify fully for the prize of the dumbest post of this month. (Sorry, I can't stop myself after reading it, don't get offended).

The primary purpose of India acquiring stealth fighters is to conduct operations like Balakot inside Pakistan. India doesn't need stealth jets to defend its borders with China; it needs them to bomb terror hideouts within Pakistan. This can be done with fourth-generation jets like Rafales and Tejas, which don't need to enter Pakistani airspace to hit targets. However, having a stealth jet enhances this capability. The USA is aware of this, which is why they would never sell the F-35 to India without the condition of not using it against Pakistan.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Remember that the Mirage-2000 had to enter deep into Pakistan to bomb the Jabbatop terror hideout. Rafales and Tejas don’t need to enter Pakistani airspace to bomb Jabbatop; they can do so from within Indian airspace, reducing risk. The F-35 can also bomb Jabbatop without entering Pakistani airspace, but if needed, it can enter Pakistani airspace without being detected by conventional radar.

 

[silicon0000]

The primary purpose of India acquiring stealth fighters is to conduct operations like Balakot inside Pakistan. India doesn't need stealth jets to defend its borders with China; it needs them to bomb terror hideouts within Pakistan. This can be done with fourth-generation jets like Rafales and Tejas, which don't need to enter Pakistani airspace to hit targets. However, having a stealth jet enhances this capability. The USA is aware of this, which is why they would never sell the F-35 to India without the condition of not using it against Pakistan.

India doesn't need stealth jets to defend its borders with China

Wonder How India is going to defend itself from J20 or J35/31 then? or again you are going to downplay stealth as it's a sour grapes.

And Isn't it the same mentality again? They will only realise the importance of stealth after experiencing something similar to the incident on February 27, 2019, when they learn the importance of secure communication and advantage of higher range and better beyond-visual-range missiles.

Remember that the Mirage-2000 had to enter deep into Pakistan to bomb the Jabbatop terror hideout. Rafales and Tejas don’t need to enter Pakistani airspace to bomb Jabbatop; they can do so from within Indian airspace, reducing risk. The F-35 can also bomb Jabbatop without entering Pakistani airspace, but if needed, it can enter Pakistani airspace without being detected by conventional radar.

In the era of long range SOW, both India and Pakistan didn't need to enter other airspace for close border strikes. That's not the part of debate neither the only mission of stealth fighter.