• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

HAL Tejas

TMA1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
21
Reaction score
20
as i said earlier it is wise for smaller nations to diversify their weapons systems. better would be building your own kit. I think India is wise in developing their own weapons. their major issue for Tejas is lack of indigenous engine and sensors. buying from French and Russian in the mean time as stop gap is smart.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
911
Website
beyondthesprues.com
as i said earlier it is wise for smaller nations to diversify their weapons systems. better would be building your own kit. I think India is wise in developing their own weapons. their major issue for Tejas is lack of indigenous engine and sensors. buying from French and Russian in the mean time as stop gap is smart.
1612803847551.jpeg

For a small nation with presumably a small fleet (e.g. Malaysia - total 39 fighters across 3 diverse types, 25 transports across 3 types, 4 VIP transports across 4 types, 12 jet trainers across 2 types...) having diversity is a recipe for very high sustainment costs and actually poor operational capability.

Building your own for a small nation is even more ridiculous.

As for the Indian example (and I don't think anyone would class India as a small nation ;)), I don't think I would put the Tejas out as a great example. As to its lack of indigenous engine and sensors, dare we talk about the GTRE Kaveri??
 
Last edited:

TMA1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
21
Reaction score
20
as i said earlier it is wise for smaller nations to diversify their weapons systems. better would be building your own kit. I think India is wise in developing their own weapons. their major issue for Tejas is lack of indigenous engine and sensors. buying from French and Russian in the mean time as stop gap is smart.
View attachment 650339

For a small nation with presumably a small fleet (e.g. Malaysia - total 39 fighters across 3 diverse types, 25 transports across 3 types, 4 VIP transports across 4 types, 12 jet trainers across 2 types...) having diversity is a recipe for very high sustainment costs and actually poor operational capability.

Building your own for a small nation is even more ridiculous.

As for the Indian example (and I don't think anyone would class India as a small nation ;)), I don't think I would put the Tejas out as a great example. As to its lack of indigenous engine and sensors, dare we talk about the GTRE Kaveri??

I was talking about small and developing nations in general.

concerning your main point it may be more efficient to buy from one supplier but this also means you are completely beholden to that supplier and their whims. look at caatsa. look at rumors of Iranian tor missile batteries being deactivated by Israel with quiet help from Russian weapons companies. look at ME and west asian nations that have to develop clever ways to keep their western fighters operational. even rumors of the so-called "kill switch". Malaysia's foreign and domestic policies might some day be at odds with the American geopolitical stance. if I was a native son of Malaysia I'd want to see hard home grown development and stop gap purchases of equipment from multiple nations in order to protect from sanctions and embargos and sabotage. wouldn't you feel the same for your nation?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
911
Website
beyondthesprues.com
There's a difference between dreams and harsh reality...

Anyway, the latest I have heard (as of only yesterday) is that the RMAF is definitely going for the ex-Kuwaiti F/A-18s
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
766
I think I've mentioned it quite often.

For some countries, buying aircraft is not just an issue of operational costs and capabilities, but also strategic foreign relations.
Of course operating as few types as possible will be cheaper but for some countries they are looking for something else.

The reason why Egypt and Qatar is buying so many different types is because they want more support from powerful countries in their international disputes. Egypt against Turkey in their East Med claims and Libya, Qatar against the Arab world (although this seems somewhat resolved now).

Malaysian pilots love their Hornets, but the reason they went for Russian aircraft in the first place was because the US would not release the AMRAAMs at that time. The US has policies restricting the use of their weapons or systems, usually for the sake of keeping balance in the region. Malaysia, while overall peaceful, has some issues with Singapore and Indonesia. Two countries that the US doesn't want to upset. This was brought up many times by Malaysia, even as recently as last year.

These restrictions/strategic flexibility are why some countries buy two similar aircraft. MiG-29s and F-16s (Egypt), MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s (Peru, India), F-16s and Mirage 200s (Egypt as well, Greece, etc).

For me I think Malaysia should keep it US and French, but Malaysia tends to opt for Russian sometimes simply because the Russians are more open to non-traditional payment, such as palm oil and rubber.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,582
Reaction score
2,544
Python_LCAPQK9.png
 

Similar threads

Top