HAL Tejas

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
2,215
as a LIFT, I can't see it being very competitive in the RAAF's competition with the other 3 actual LIFTs. the T-7, M-346 and T-50

in terms of who would win. my guess is lit would likely be in order of T-7 being the most likely followed by..
T-7 > M-346 > T-50 >>>> Tejas LIFT
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,361
Reaction score
2,111
Just answer me this....
Why, when training is based around Hawk LIFT, would it be cheaper to change platform?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just roll off more Hawk fitted with appropriate avionics for the next generation of LIFT?

After all Hawk is a known quantity, the infrastructure is well versed in it's support, and the platform already has had a modernisation for LIFT that proved acceptable.
Changing to US T-7 or Italian M-346 or even South Korean T-50 is adding unnecessary cost in terms of support. Change for change's sake.
It's not like these other platforms are frankly any better for LIFT as far as the RAF is concerned.
The idea supersonic aircraft are cheaper to run is delusion.
The idea the subsonic platforms are cheaper or better platforms is frankly also delusion.

No this only plays to a political bent. One that always prefers the foreign, "grass is always greener over there" kind of attitude.
And politically if we are buying foreign it is much more likely to meet a foreign policy objective than the needs of the RAF.
In which case why not Taiwanese Ching Kuo trainers?

If we're buying Indian Tejas Trainers, it would be because it serves FCO and DTI horsetrading on Totally unrelated issues. Essentially a bung.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
2,215
Just answer me this....
Why, when training is based around Hawk LIFT, would it be cheaper to change platform?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just roll off more Hawk fitted with appropriate avionics for the next generation of LIFT?

After all Hawk is a known quantity, the infrastructure is well versed in it's support, and the platform already has had a modernisation for LIFT that proved acceptable.
Changing to US T-7 or Italian M-346 or even South Korean T-50 is adding unnecessary cost in terms of support. Change for change's sake.
It's not like these other platforms are frankly any better for LIFT as far as the RAF is concerned.
The idea supersonic aircraft are cheaper to run is delusion.
The idea the subsonic platforms are cheaper or better platforms is frankly also delusion.

No this only plays to a political bent. One that always prefers the foreign, "grass is always greener over there" kind of attitude.
And politically if we are buying foreign it is much more likely to meet a foreign policy objective than the needs of the RAF.
In which case why not Taiwanese Ching Kuo trainers?

If we're buying Indian Tejas Trainers, it would be because it serves FCO and DTI horsetrading on Totally unrelated issues. Essentially a bung.
perhaps its a jobs thing..
one reason why I believe the T-7 will win because Boeing has a plant in Australia. the Aussies will just have the T-7 produced there to create jobs.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
4,499
Hawk is dead, nothing is going to bring it back now.

The RAAF's Hawk 127s are aging and have had issues with serviceability. BAE Systems Australia did work to push the airframe life out to 50,000 hours to allow them to serve until the 2040s, but I guess this was thought of as unfeasible as the airframes and avionics age.

Its a fair bet the T-7 will win, the RAAF only seems interested in Boeing products these days.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,895
Reaction score
4,257
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Hawk is dead, nothing is going to bring it back now.

The RAAF's Hawk 127s are aging and have had issues with serviceability. BAE Systems Australia did work to push the airframe life out to 50,000 hours to allow them to serve until the 2040s, but I guess this was thought of as unfeasible as the airframes and avionics age.

Its a fair bet the T-7 will win, the RAAF only seems interested in Boeing products these days.
The AIR6002 RFI (some details here) was open to anyone I believe. Hence why HAL presumably submitted. That said, it wouldn't have any realistic chance of proceeding to actual hardware.

I agree that the T-7 is the most likely eventual winner. Mind you, the latest intel' is that this will be pushed back until the 2030s with the Hawk 127s getting a further upgrade under a presumed new phase 2 (?) of Project AIR 5438 LIF Capability Assurance Program (LIFCAP). This will involve re-engining the fleet with the Mk.951 version of the RR Adour.
 

JCage

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
41
Reaction score
7
In a manner of speaking, the IAF wanted Mirage 2000/MiG-29 class systems capability in a MiG-21 sized form factor, and so that is what has been achieved. While the avionics are firmly modern, the platform is a light fighter and its payload/range reflect the same. The time taken was not for the platform alone, but setting up the entire infra in India to develop everything from the airframe to the avionics, and the engine. Bar the engine, India now has the ability to do the rest inhouse. The radar which was originally partly imported in Mk1, is now under trials, for fitment into the Mk1 and part of the Mk1A. The 40 original Mk1s will receive the Indian AESA and SPJ via upgrades.

Mk1A will add maintenance improvements on top of the existing capability, along with a redesigned cockpit display system (sensor fusion) + wideband AESA radar and jammer. The initial units will be Israeli (Elta) but IAF will have the option to switch to an all Indian suite.

MK2 is a whole different beast intended to give the IAF a proper multirole strike aircraft like the F-16 Block 70, or even the Gripen E/F (but a much wider range of weapons, as a range of Indian developed systems will be integrated from day one), but its progress depends on funding.

The IAF is short of money (nothing new) and easy imports are always preferable to development programs.

The current Govt is however fed up of the Armed Force's import dependence and lurching from emergency import to emergency import, so there is a good chance the program may still be funded.

Bar the engine, rest will mostly be local. A few items will be bought off the shelf for the initial builds (IRST, Refuelling pod, radome etc).

A domestic engine program remains a key weakness, and will not be resolved in the near future given Indian funding challenges.
 
Last edited:

JCage

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
41
Reaction score
7
EjdTj1AU4AALq1J



EcISnn9UcAAtxsI


Brief video on the Tejas
View: https://twitter.com/iaf_mcc/status/1110350490565369856?lang=en
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
While browsing a magazine regarding the tejas history i came across the mentioning of an Ericsson/Ferranti radar, anyone has an idea of what radar were they talking about?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
5,876
Reaction score
5,723
Wiki:
It was initially planned for the LCA to use the Ericsson Microwave Systems PS-05/A I/J-band multi-function radar, which was developed by Ericsson and Ferranti ...
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,198
Reaction score
1,614
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?
This reminds me of a conversation with a US Navy SEAL circa 2000. I had not seen him for a few months when he strode across the Perris Valley, California Skydiving Center to greet me. When I asked where he had been, he replied "We were in (insert name of a Central American shit-hole) teaching their riverine forces how to intercept drug smugglers."
Then I asked "Aren't you afraid that you will have to re-invade in a few more years?"
"Nah. We only taught them 3/4 of what we know."

Any major supplier nation can shut down a client nation by with-holding the supply of spare parts.
With modern software, it is even easier to ground a fleet if they miss a payment.
Modern software is inherently "glitchy" and prone to failure if not frequently up-dated.
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
Well, theres been quite some stuff going around the Tejas in recent times:
First the presence of 2 FOC and 1 IOC at the Dubai Air show
1636538325761.jpeg

20211114_221018.jpg


Malaysian deal continues, Major offer to Egypt (who's on the look for 100 LIFT aircraft) and a strange offer to Argentina contemplating the replacement of all British made components on the Tejas.



And apparently the Kaveri is heading to Russia soon.
View: https://twitter.com/DefenceReach/status/1462134632929845252?s=20
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,895
Reaction score
4,257
Website
beyondthesprues.com
What makes you think that?
Because of its troubled development, lack of capability when compared to alternates, questionable support, lack of history for anyone buying Indian products such as this and about a dozen other reasons backed by years of experience in this field. Discussions with some of the senior members of the Air Forces supposedly being offered it such as the RMAF also back this ascertain. They are just not interested.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
1,006
And that’s before considering the geo-politics that normally come into play for such deals/ decisions (which India may struggle to prevail in).
Plus factors like cost (really that much cheaper than more established alternatives to overcome other perceived factors?).
Also potentially a bit of a catch-22, by the time it has a really established proven service record (to counter-weigh some of the potential concerns) will it still be in production or will India have by then moved on to their next fighter program?
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
What makes you think that?
Because of its troubled development, lack of capability when compared to alternates, questionable support, lack of history for anyone buying Indian products such as this and about a dozen other reasons backed by years of experience in this field. Discussions with some of the senior members of the Air Forces supposedly being offered it such as the RMAF also back this ascertain. They are just not interested.
Ill disagree on certain aspects, first on capability...as the plane is equal or some times superior when compared to its equals (LCAs). Things like service and the history of sales by India will remain a unknown until there is an Export user, as the same thing can be said about its Pakistani counterpart...and that has already scored a few Sales (and its competing for both RMAF and FAA deals).

The RMAF deal kinda puts the decision in between the FA-50, the JF-17 and the Tejas (didn't the Russians also offered something?). I guess that with some time..we will see what platform they chose.
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
181
Reaction score
135
its Pakistani counterpart...and that has already scored a few Sales (and its competing for both RMAF and FAA deals).
  1. Its Pakistani counterpart isn't just Pakistani (hope I haven't offended anyone). China is in this market since the 1980s at the latest;
  2. PRC for many decades had a fully established financing(loan)/technical support/feedback infrastructure. India - not yet;
  3. JF-17 is seen as an evolutionary airframe. Yes, there is little left from J-7/Super-7, but it still was never seen as a true dark horse;
  4. There is only one foreign "tail" with JF-17 - engine. And Russian engine will not bother almost anyone who will even consider it;
  5. JF-17 had a huge foreign anchor buyer(so much anchor you've named it Pakistani counterpart). This is not something Tejas has;
  6. It took >decade of service to start getting orders, and those orders are from very specific countries(huge red banner once again);
  7. JF-17 appeared 1.5 decade ago. Tejas by now is a bit late to the party for what it is;
  8. (hope not offending anyone #2) - Tejas purchase carries little prestige and brings in big risks/suspicions to a politician responsible. To make it into export success, you need someone truly desperate for fighters, here and now.
For this reason, for a while Tejas probably won't go far from Indian borders. A bit of a shame, I really like its looks.
The cutest fighter around ;)
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
its Pakistani counterpart...and that has already scored a few Sales (and its competing for both RMAF and FAA deals).
  1. Its Pakistani counterpart isn't just Pakistani (hope I haven't offended anyone). China is in this market since the 1980s at the latest;
  2. PRC for many decades had a fully established financing(loan)/technical support/feedback infrastructure. India - not yet;
  3. JF-17 is seen as an evolutionary airframe. Yes, there is little left from J-7/Super-7, but it still was never seen as a true dark horse;
  4. There is only one foreign "tail" with JF-17 - engine. And Russian engine will not bother almost anyone who will even consider it;
  5. JF-17 had a huge foreign anchor buyer(so much anchor you've named it Pakistani counterpart). This is not something Tejas has;
  6. It took >decade of service to start getting orders, and those orders are from very specific countries(huge red banner once again);
  7. JF-17 appeared 1.5 decade ago. Tejas by now is a bit late to the party for what it is;
  8. (hope not offending anyone #2) - Tejas purchase carries little prestige and brings in big risks/suspicions to a politician responsible. To make it into export success, you need someone truly desperate for fighters, here and now.
For this reason, for a while Tejas probably won't go far from Indian borders. A bit of a shame, I really like its looks.
The cutest fighter around ;)
I say Pakistani (according to them, there is a Half-ish Percent of the aircraft made there), because the aircraft its mostly Assembled/made there, and also the approaches made by PAC for export were more..."Vivid" than what the Chinese showed.

Still, its an option for an LCA with at least more than half a decade of service, pretty modern equipment and a competitive pricing in a category where most other offers are going to be the JF-17, FA-50 or any other LIFT aircraft. There is some export potential there...but only time will tell if the little delta goes anywhere.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,895
Reaction score
4,257
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Yes, don't underestimate the China factor in the case of the JF-17 when comparing.

And speaking of comparisons in this class:

Platform
HAL Tejas​
CAC FC-1/PAC JF-17​
KAI T/FA-50​
Saab JAS-39 Gripen​
First Flight
4 Jan 2001​
25 Aug 2003​
20 Aug 2002​
9 Dec 1988​
Number Produced (Exported)
37 (0)​
150 (12)​
200 (64)​
270+ (139)​

Air Forces, like people in general, tend to stick to what others are doing. In this regard, the Tejas's lack of production/exports does count against it.

Not factored in here also is the impact of second hand fighters being offered - e.g. ex-Kuwaiti F/A-18C/Ds, ex-RAAF F/A-18A/Bs, plenty of second hand F-16s, Saab offering older Gripens and or more lease deals...etc. The market for this class is very challenging for Tejas.
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
2,215
Yes, don't underestimate the China factor in the case of the JF-17 when comparing.

And speaking of comparisons in this class:

Platform
HAL Tejas​
CAC FC-1/PAC JF-17​
KAI T/FA-50​
Saab JAS-39 Gripen​
First Flight
4 Jan 2001​
25 Aug 2003​
20 Aug 2002​
9 Dec 1988​
Number Produced (Exported)
37 (0)​
150 (12)​
200 (64)​
270+ (139)​

Air Forces, like people in general, tend to stick to what others are doing. In this regard, the Tejas's lack of production/exports does count against it.

Not factored in here also is the impact of second hand fighters being offered - e.g. ex-Kuwaiti F/A-18C/Ds, ex-RAAF F/A-18A/Bs, plenty of second hand F-16s, Saab offering older Gripens and or more lease deals...etc. The market for this class is very challenging for Tejas.

Thanks for this! I had no idea that many Golden Eagles were produced! surprised there are more of them than JF-17s.. and second to the Gripen!
I suspect at least for Malaysia, the FA-50 is highly likely to get it. most of its SEAsian neighbors already use it, its established, combat proven, and doesn't seem to have the political risk the JF-17 does (recent Chinese incursion in Malaysian waters), or the program risk the Tejas does.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
3,172
Reaction score
1,727
Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.


Sorry to contradict, but given the long delays, the fact that India itself changed its mind towards the vastly different and more capable Mk. 2, India's overall not existent customer and after sales support and the most important political background that too does not favour India, I see in fact rather NO change of any export sales.

But lets wait and see.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,198
Reaction score
1,614
Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.


Sorry to contradict, but given the long delays, the fact that India itself changed its mind towards the vastly different and more capable Mk. 2, India's overall not existent customer and after sales support and the most important political background that too does not favour India, I see in fact rather NO change of any export sales.

But lets wait and see.
Tejas 2 ... or whatever they are calling it lately .. reminds us of the proposed South African Carver 2. Both are big, long-ranged, twin-engined, two-seater naval strike airplanes capable of launching heavy anti-ship missiles ... a completely different role than Carver Mark 1 or Tejas Mark 1. Both nations probably need two or more differ3ent types of fighters: a light-weight single-seater and a larger, longer-ranging naval strike airplane. South Africa could not afford both types.

The next question is whether India can afford to develop two distinct fighter jets. ???
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.


Sorry to contradict, but given the long delays, the fact that India itself changed its mind towards the vastly different and more capable Mk. 2, India's overall not existent customer and after sales support and the most important political background that too does not favour India, I see in fact rather NO change of any export sales.

But lets wait and see.
Its hard to say with certainty what they think about the Mk.2, as (like the Mk.1 and Naval Tejas) the opinions towards it change from time to time. The only thing that is Certain is that there are 80+ on oder and they are saving some margin for export, whether it happens or not, its up to them and some user that is on the look for an LCA.

Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.


Sorry to contradict, but given the long delays, the fact that India itself changed its mind towards the vastly different and more capable Mk. 2, India's overall not existent customer and after sales support and the most important political background that too does not favour India, I see in fact rather NO change of any export sales.

But lets wait and see.
Tejas 2 ... or whatever they are calling it lately .. reminds us of the proposed South African Carver 2. Both are big, long-ranged, twin-engined, two-seater naval strike airplanes capable of launching heavy anti-ship missiles ... a completely different role than Carver Mark 1 or Tejas Mark 1. Both nations probably need two or more differ3ent types of fighters: a light-weight single-seater and a larger, longer-ranging naval strike airplane. South Africa could not afford both types.

The next question is whether India can afford to develop two distinct fighter jets. ???
Thats the TEDBF or Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter...(what an absolute name eh?), and..to be fair, its pretty distant from what the Tejas is.
TEDBF_00-Portada.jpg
TEDBF

What the Mk.2 is...its just an enlarged Tejas with Cannards, a more powerful engine, a few more weapon stations and IRST.
E-PvZa3UcAI9xmI.jpeg
This render kinda gives the idea.

In my opinion Mk.2 seems more plausible than the Twin engine naval thing (can we just call it the indian rafale?) and the AMCA. Mainly because its just a modification of Tejas Mk.1A
MWF-AF1.jpg
I would be surprised if it even retains the 404 in its initial versions + the same 2032/2052 radars. (still Mk.2 seems a lot more nicer for export than Mk.1A)
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
181
Reaction score
135
Mainly because its just a modification of Tejas Mk.1A
Given the degree of difference, it's a modification of Tejas Mk.1A in the same way Super Hornet is a modification of the basic Hornet airframe.
Actually less, bugs at least retained their basic aerodynamic configuration.

I.e. right now one can say that basic LCA managed to split into 4(!) different, more or less parallel fighter aircraft.
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
Given the degree of difference, it's a modification of Tejas Mk.1A in the same way Super Hornet is a modification of the basic Hornet airframe.
Actually less, bugs at least retained their basic aerodynamic configuration.
You could say that, but i guess we will have our final answer when the Mk.2 prototype is rolled out in 1 or 2 years. (if it goes on with all the changes it proposes, or its just an elongated Mk.1A)
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
181
Reaction score
135
Given the degree of difference, it's a modification of Tejas Mk.1A in the same way Super Hornet is a modification of the basic Hornet airframe.
Actually less, bugs at least retained their basic aerodynamic configuration.
You could say that, but i guess we will have our final answer when the Mk.2 prototype is rolled out in 1 or 2 years. (if it goes on with all the changes it proposes, or its just an elongated Mk.1A)
Original plans iirc call for us to see it within a year - i.e. in 2022.
Plans may slip to the right, but this means that the first airframe is well in production.
IMHO - this means we'll see the model from recent exhibitions - i.e. the one from your render.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
2,215
Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.


Sorry to contradict, but given the long delays, the fact that India itself changed its mind towards the vastly different and more capable Mk. 2, India's overall not existent customer and after sales support and the most important political background that too does not favour India, I see in fact rather NO change of any export sales.

But lets wait and see.
Its hard to say with certainty what they think about the Mk.2, as (like the Mk.1 and Naval Tejas) the opinions towards it change from time to time. The only thing that is Certain is that there are 80+ on oder and they are saving some margin for export, whether it happens or not, its up to them and some user that is on the look for an LCA.

Well, considering the long history of the program (and the quite ambitious things that hold it back for quite some time), its understandable why it wouldn't have as much interest from the outside, + an internal dispute over pushing Tejas or Buying any of the aircraft offered by USA/SWE/RUS/etc. Nonetheless they went with it, the 83 plane deal..might as well be a sign of more confidence.

Again ill disagree, only the Gripen or the F-16 (not so much for third world) would fit in this "LCA range" where the objective is to find cheaper alternatives, thing that the F18 (or the russian options) isn't. Still it has its appeal, its a relatively cheap, extremely modern and small platform with access to a nice variety of weapons and systems, whether they find an export customer or not...we'll have to wait.


Sorry to contradict, but given the long delays, the fact that India itself changed its mind towards the vastly different and more capable Mk. 2, India's overall not existent customer and after sales support and the most important political background that too does not favour India, I see in fact rather NO change of any export sales.

But lets wait and see.
Tejas 2 ... or whatever they are calling it lately .. reminds us of the proposed South African Carver 2. Both are big, long-ranged, twin-engined, two-seater naval strike airplanes capable of launching heavy anti-ship missiles ... a completely different role than Carver Mark 1 or Tejas Mark 1. Both nations probably need two or more differ3ent types of fighters: a light-weight single-seater and a larger, longer-ranging naval strike airplane. South Africa could not afford both types.

The next question is whether India can afford to develop two distinct fighter jets. ???
Thats the TEDBF or Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter...(what an absolute name eh?), and..to be fair, its pretty distant from what the Tejas is.
View attachment 668506
TEDBF

While its a very good artwork.. its a fan drawing of TEDBF.
the latest TEDBF model looks like this, a far cry from Tejas and in actuality a totally different plane

There's been a worrisome trend on people trying to upload their own artwork and designs (especially in Wikipedia), instead of using actual official ones that are not copyrighted. The problem is these artwork are often totally original and quite inaccurate from whats been presented.

I also agree with the previous comment that the Mk2, with its new engine, longer length, canards, etc.. make it functionally a new plane (you can't upgrade one plane to the other). just like the Hornet to super hornet, MiG-29 to MiG-35, Su-27 to Su-35, etc
fg_3888485-jdw-10354.jpg
 

Roland55

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
492
While its a very good artwork.. its a fan drawing of TEDBF.
the latest TEDBF model looks like this, a far cry from Tejas and in actuality a totally different plane
Thats..my bad, the render i posted its not from the TEDBF, but from another idea that came before it..ORCA...or Omni Role Combat aircraft, that was essentially a Tejas with 2 engines. But yeah, the TEDBF is a completely different thing.

I also agree with the previous comment that the Mk2, with its new engine, longer length, canards, etc.. make it functionally a new plane (you can't upgrade one plane to the other). just like the Hornet to super hornet, MiG-29 to MiG-35, Su-27 to Su-35, etc
With the structural changes its already a different thing, although its could retain a few things from Mk.1A, it will be quite an improvement.
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
181
Reaction score
135
Thats..my bad, the render i posted its not from the TEDBF, but from another idea that came before it..ORCA...or Omni Role Combat aircraft, that was essentially a Tejas with 2 engines. But yeah, the TEDBF is a completely different thing.
A bit of a shame IAF didn't bite.
Not because it makes any sense, just this whole Tejaswaffe across 2 services and 5 different airframes would've been utterly glorious.

p.s. as far as I understand, mk.2 is not just a development of mk.1A - and if Indian plans are to succeed(history talks against them, but at least it is planned) - by design mk.1A and mk.2 will be in production simultaneously for at least several years, as they are filling two different niches.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
2,529
· 9 Full prototype engines and 4 core engines built.
· 3217 hours of engine testing conducted.
· Completed Altitude tests & Flying Test Bed (FTB) trials. This is the first time that an indigenously developed military gas turbine engine was flight tested.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
994
Reaction score
855
While its a very good artwork.. its a fan drawing of TEDBF.
the latest TEDBF model looks like this, a far cry from Tejas and in actuality a totally different plane

There's been a worrisome trend on people trying to upload their own artwork and designs (especially in Wikipedia), instead of using actual official ones that are not copyrighted. The problem is these artwork are often totally original and quite inaccurate from whats been presented.

I also agree with the previous comment that the Mk2, with its new engine, longer length, canards, etc.. make it functionally a new plane (you can't upgrade one plane to the other). just like the Hornet to super hornet, MiG-29 to MiG-35, Su-27 to Su-35, etc
fg_3888485-jdw-10354.jpg

Either the pilot or the aircraft is made to the wrong scale :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211207-170037_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20211207-170037_Chrome.jpg
    116.1 KB · Views: 15

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
2,529

MK-1A to take flight in June
“We will be attempting at least 6-8 aircraft (LCA) this year. All 10 aircraft are already ready, there are some systems to be delivered from Israel. If that happens in time, we can deliver all 10,” Mr. Madhavan told The Hindu talking of the hectic calendar HAL has for this year. “By June this year we should start flying the LCA MK-1A configuration. Once flying starts, we have about 20 to 24 months of testing. Once that is done, we will be ready for deliveries as expected.

LCA-MK2 roll out by year end or early 2023
The design for LCA MK-2, a much bigger aircraft, has been frozen and some of the manufacturing activities have started. Hopefully by this year end or early 2023 we should have the first roll out of the aircraft, and one year after that it will be taking to the skies, Mr. Madhavan said. “We are targeting early 2023 but we should be able to do it slightly early.”

The LCA MK-2 features enhanced range and endurance including Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS), which is being integrated for the first time. Heavy stand off weapons of the class of Scalp, Crystal Maze and Spice-2000 will also be integrated on the MK-2. The MK-2 will be a heavier and much more capable aircraft than the current LCA variants with the aircraft 1350mm longer, featuring canards and can carry a payload of 6,500 kg compared to 3,500 kg by the LCA.
 

Similar threads

Top