The Tejas fighter’s role in war

[Slayer786]

Well after 28 years you would think that it was better than J-17. But we should test it against J-17 and see who comes out at the top.
I thought it was more than 28 years spent on developing tejas........

 

[janon]

Well after 28 years you would think that it was better than J-17. But we should test it against J-17 and see who comes out at the top.
I thought it was more than 28 years spent on developing tejas........

You thought wrong. Development started in '92.

 

[conworldus]

This is a strange article. The Tejas is a short range, defensive interceptor just like the Mig-21 it is intended to replace. If the cost goes down, which is a big question mark given the number of foreign components, it might also be useful for anti-insurgency operations.

 

[Hellfire]

This is a strange article. The Tejas is a short range, defensive interceptor just like the Mig-21 it is intended to replace. If the cost goes down, which is a big question mark given the number of foreign components, it might also be useful for anti-insurgency operations.

Since when is India using fighter in CI? Come to think of it which country uses air force aircraft in counter insurgency? Other than someone fighting in a foreign territory (US in Afghanistan/Iraq) no one is stupid to use fighters in CI operations. In addition, if you want to talk about usage of LGBs then the cost is just too high for such a deployment

 

[Hellfire]

Without comparing plane to plane, what is your opinion on how the tejas can fit into the IAF's force structure? Also, if you have any ideas on how the IAF may employ it tactically...

In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, if we can fill our lower tier with tejas in place of the mig-21s and 27s, the IAF will have a quantum leap in capability and quality. Remember, the IAF needs nuumbers. And uber expensive aircrafts like rafale or MKIs cannot give us 39 squadrons. Tejas is a welcome boon.

You are heading on correct course there. What I found the most amusing is that most people miss the fact that Mig-21 (for all its bad publicity) is an aircraft which is slightly difficult to detect because of the fact that it has a miniscule RCS as compared to the modern generation aircraft. In low level interdiction missions, they have been found to be hard to detect until and unless specifically looking for it as discerning it from the background ground clutter by AWACs at times is difficult. The RCS of tejas is very similar and additionally due to usage of some carbon composite and radar absorbing paint, the RCS is reduced. Being a small sized aircraft the same is also hard to detect. Added to it is the ever improving BVR capability with IAF. The fact of the matter is today, we have the capability to track any and everything lifting off Pakistani airbases and it covers the whole of Pakistani airspace. Tibet is roughly covered and satellites are covering the rest of China (MilSat, OceanSat, ResourceSat family)

And I certainly agree with you. We need numbers, at economical rate, and keeping in view the enemy capability. US help is actively there in LCA project (for consultation and engine) keeping in mind Chinese presence.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

This is a strange article. The Tejas is a short range, defensive interceptor just like the Mig-21 it is intended to replace. If the cost goes down, which is a big question mark given the number of foreign components, it might also be useful for anti-insurgency operations.

Don't talk about stuff you don't understand

 

[janon]

This is a strange article. The Tejas is a short range, defensive interceptor just like the Mig-21 it is intended to replace. If the cost goes down, which is a big question mark given the number of foreign components, it might also be useful for anti-insurgency operations.

1) Tejas is a multirole fighter, not an interceptor. Yes, it is a light fighter, which means its payload and range are not too high, but that fits perfectly in our force structure, since we have other heavies to do the heavy lifting. But it is not just an interceptor as you claim. It can and will be used in every role from aerial fighting to ground attack to anti ship attack to escorting to CAP to CAS. There is a reason that it was developed as an all weather, multirole fighter from the beginning.

2) It is an avowed policy of India that airpower will not be used for counter insurgency. Not even attack helicopters.

Since when is India using fighter in CI? Come to think of it which country uses air force aircraft in counter insurgency? Other than someone fighting in a foreign territory (US in Afghanistan/Iraq) no one is stupid to use fighters in CI operations. In addition, if you want to talk about usage of LGBs then the cost is just too high for such a deployment

You forgot our beloved neighbour, Pakistan.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The Tejas’ likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas’ superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF’s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF’s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.



You made my day

It's a very accurate estimate.

I smelled methane from the brain... and yes it was exactly that. Not only is Shukla as usual on his self fellatio of which most of his article consists of(thank god he isnt an actual professional).. he also has written NOTHING of value on the Role the Tejas might take.

The Tejas is the light component in India's arsenal.. but it does not mean it wont undertake critical missions. Specifically it will be well suited to provide embedded escort for Jaguar DARINs whilst taking up the crucial local CAP role away from the more offensive oriented fighters such as the MKIs and Rafales. Its smaller size also may give it quicker turnaround time for FLOT(forward line of troops) CAS sorties. A secondary role that the Tejas might take is that of holding the fort on the eastern border. There is nothing on the eastern border of India that the Tejas cannot handle effectively and it is well suited as an asset there.

Hasn't he clarified on the 'role' that while in the past there has been a tendency to use Heavy fighters for deep penetration and strike, right now the thinking is that both platforms need to be multi-role? But obviously deep penetration and strike bias will be for MKIs for sure. By the time the Tejas actually enters in good nos., I think we'll be looking at JAGS being pushed out.

 

[Viper 94]

4 generation fighters entering service between 2005- 2014

Gripen

J10

Typhoon & Rafale

TEJAS

THE ODD ONE OUT

JF17 THUNDER FC1

The thunder is only NON DELTA fighter entering service between 2005-2014...

have the others got it wrong

i would like to point that out that jf-17 uses cropped delta wig design with leading edge root extension
the green region on jf-17 are not ailerons they are slats
ailerons and flaps are both in the blue area
tejas has a tailless delta wing configuration with no canards
eurofighter, rafael, j-10 and grippen all use canards that makes tejas the odd one

 

[kingdurgaking]

Complete BS, What source code are you talking about RVV AE? RVV AE is quite expensive, and the reason for Derby/Python IV has been because of higher shelf life, different seeker and a huge bang for the buck price, with RVV SD and even better K77 Aesa coming into the picture R77 line is going to become a game changer and it will still remain in contention and yes India posses all the system architecture bus address which I assume you are referring to as source code for Rvv ae...

For the Long range and medium range AAM solution for LCA and future products was to consolidate astra1/2 AAM series thus Python IV/ Derby solutions are stop gap measure and not permanent ordinances. If R77 was chosen, you would see a larger book order and eventually some babu pushing for ToT deal for RVV series instantly killing the astra program....


I dont know, because I dont have specifactions of Jf 17 to compare with and I am not Ajai shukla, and I try to avoid foot in my mouth syndrome

First of all we dont posses any architecture or bus address of any of the Russian stuff.. Even in MKI we dont have any direct communication of the MC with radar.. there is an adapter specially developed by Indian and Russian scientist which does all the work. That is how FBW or any missile launch was successful.... which is why MKI had its own development life cycle when the su-30 had already been developed.... The same goes for integrating Israeli pod with MKI.. there is no direct link with MC ... it is done with an adapter between Israeli and India..

Similarly the same happened with Navy Mig-29 for integration with HMS.. An adapter was developed between the French and Russian to accomodate the changes..

The same goes in effect with R-77.. it is a fact.. It was mentioned in a BR who have read a book released by a person call RajKumar.. In that it was clearly mentioned has Elta 2030 had different architecture to accomodate R-77 and russian refused to give the source code because of they believed it might become a security issue for their country.. the main reason being missile has to coordinate with Radar directly and they are very much worried about it... The infra red missile was integrated by luck or fluke after several tries .. if it has been failed they where planning to go for Israel version of the same.. This was done mainly because IAF insisted on the infra red missile because it is the best of its class...

Secondly we dont need to buy new missile as we had sufficiently bought the same for Mig-21..

Still i would stand corrected if you can prove your claim...

AOA achieved 26*. Hybrid FBW due to stable design. No need of complex FBW. BVR, WVR, PGM integrated on JF-17. Radar Range for JF-17. 130 Km for 5m^2. 111.2 for 3 m^2 . IFR integrated. Work is in progress to integrate HMS/D of south african origin. Do let us know `where JF-17 is lacking? only in composite category. 30-40 percent composites are used in JF-17 instead of 70-80 percent in Tejaas.

If this is your requirement it is fine... i am sure PAF does not share your views.. they are already trained with F-16 which is based on the design what Tejas is built..

The problem, @sandy_3126 is that many of our defence writers are put on high pedestal by hyperventilating joe public who may never have flown an air craft , leave alone know much about aerodynamics and weapons systems. For example , these writers may have been tank commanders or naval officers in their prime but to write about aviation - and a platform like Tejas and then comparing it with other blocks, is inhaling too much of propane. I totally agree with your view What Indian media needs to do is less comparison and just report on developments in the program, once the system matures, comparisons can become evident....ye tod denge phod denge attitude is best left at home

I am not in your view.. Shukla is not a "heck" .. he is a veteran and knows about the military stuff very well.. he makes several visits to HAL and all sensitive places.. He knows what he is writing.. But he likes F-35 and it is his personal choice what he likes or what he dislikes.. He is the one who had given some inside overview of what older Tejas are being tested which you might not have ever imagined..

 

[scorpionx]

i would like to point that out that jf-17 uses cropped delta wig design with leading edge root extension
the green region on jf-17 are not ailerons they are slats
ailerons and flaps are both in the blue area
tejas has a tailless delta wing configuration with no canards
eurofighter, rafael, j-10 and grippen all use canards that makes tejas the odd one

The lesser swept angle in the front of LCA is meant to perform the job of the canards.

 

[Bratva]

Mayfia since its a Tejas thread and you asked the question

Do let us know `where JF-17 is lacking?over the Tejas i would suggest the following

Flight control system on thunder is a stable design which makes less agile than tejas unstable designed FCS

Russian engine on thunder is more labour maintenance work than tejas usa suppplied genereral electric engines which have far more life hours.

Is the chinease radar missle mix as effcient or as lethel as the israeli supplied elta radar and derby/python 5 missle mix on lca mk1.

I believe the thunder at present has not chosen a HMDS system for their fighter where as lca tejas mk1 is getting indian version of israel elbit system.

Ew suites indians developed a Mayavi EW suite, the Indo-Israeli JV. This includes RWR & MAWS /LWR as standard in mk1 Tejas. To date i understand the thunder as no MAWS capability.

PS before the pakistan posters kill me the thunder as its advantages over tejas too

Much bigger weapons range especially strike missles ie cruise missles

far more mature and battle ready today

massive chinease backing to improve in block 2 & 3

longer ranger bvrs sd10

longer combat radius

PAF will induct larger nos far quicker and at cheaper cost.

This post of yours shows complete ignorance of yours about JF-17 Block 1. Head over to JF-17 information pool thread to know What kind of MAWS, EW, easy engine maintenance being used and PAF completely satisfied with engine and Complete Maintenance program developed for JF-17's.

And yeah Next time, Compare things on merit instead of saying Israeli > China measuring contest

 

[MilSpec]

First of all we dont posses any architecture or bus address of any of the Russian stuff.. Even in MKI we dont have any direct communication of the MC with radar.. there is an adapter specially developed by Indian and Russian scientist which does all the work. That is how FBW or any missile launch was successful.... which is why MKI had its own development life cycle when the su-30 had already been developed.... The same goes for integrating Israeli pod with MKI.. there is no direct link with MC ... it is done with an adapter between Israeli and India..

Similarly the same happened with Navy Mig-29 for integration with HMS.. An adapter was developed between the French and Russian to accomodate the changes..

The same goes in effect with R-77.. it is a fact.. It was mentioned in a BR who have read a book released by a person call RajKumar.. In that it was clearly mentioned has Elta 2030 had different architecture to accomodate R-77 and russian refused to give the source code because of they believed it might become a security issue for their country.. the main reason being missile has to coordinate with Radar directly and they are very much worried about it... The infra red missile was integrated by luck or fluke after several tries .. if it has been failed they where planning to go for Israel version of the same.. This was done mainly because IAF insisted on the infra red missile because it is the best of its class...

Secondly we dont need to buy new missile as we had sufficiently bought the same for Mig-21..

Still i would stand corrected if you can prove your claim...



If this is your requirement it is fine... i am sure PAF does not share your views.. they are already trained with F-16 which is based on the design what Tejas is built..




I am not in your view.. Shukla is not a "heck" .. he is a veteran and knows about the military stuff very well.. he makes several visits to HAL and all sensitive places.. He knows what he is writing.. But he likes F-35 and it is his personal choice what he likes or what he dislikes.. He is the one who had given some inside overview of what older Tejas are being tested which you might not have ever imagined..

I wont discuss the field bus in detail, but i will explain why the adapter is needed. The Mil bus architecture that is used in russian system is analogous to the foundation field bus communication protocol in theory. Now assume in industrial application of system that uses flex I/O ethernet system along with along with a FFB sonsors, you would need a pro-soft adapter in your PLC to read from the same chanel onto your ethernet ports. Same in theory is used to read the hardware drive tags from Russian R77 or R27 system with an exception one particular variant. These system achrictecture tags are used for Diagnostics, launch, Intertial navigation constants with mid course updates (derrived tag from the radar), and the communication tag for which the the radar data is mated with the BVR missile during the terminal stage.

Adapters are used to consolidate the communication protocols for the mission computer, so essentially you can fix a ANPG 68 radar in a LCA in theory with the right adapter to fire the meteor and the R77 alike.

Now the question is whether LCA tejas can fire the R77, I will disagree with your BR experts and still maintain that yes LCA tejas will have the ability to fire the Rvv ae, R27ET/ER, Kh31, KH35, Astra 1/2 and Derby/Python 4....

As far as ajai shukla is concerned, from his content of his article- he's a Hack!

 

[Last Samuri]

Mafiya. You asked the question I answered it.

Superior flight control, ie more modern, and we prefer western tech over the Russian high maintenance tech in the tejas.

The fact that Pakistan feels its efficient or great to have Russian and chinease tech does not change India decision to go Israeli USA etc.

Fact of life western equals more reliability...for tejas which wil be advantage over thunders pure eastern hardware

 

[Rafi]

According to IAF own assessments, the LCA has systematic problems which will not allow it to be deployed as a system for another ten years at least.