Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

suryag wrote:Btw I seriously doubt the need for exclusive specialized refuelers given the number of Rambas we have, look at it a flight of Rambas can top off 3 Tejas and get out at supersonic speed, if anything I would add a specialized squadron or two of Rambas to the fleet for A2A refueling
Surya sir, Su-30 isn't a dedicated refueller. Which will carry far more fuel and transfer fuel at full flow rate etc. With low airframe numbers we need to rotate the Su-30s for escort, deep interdiction etc. Can't maintain a bunch of Su-30s on station for refuelling alone. Yes, many do have the Cobham pods, but it's an adjunct not the same thing.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

nachiket wrote:
Karan M wrote:That's true but a lot of the blame stands with the political executives of the time who didn't take a firm stand and lay down the policy. Instead you lead the service on by claiming all needs will be met, giving unreasonable hope. UPA led the IAF and the nation on a decade long wild goose chase. IAF leadership would have asked for something else like the S300 etc in return or for tradeoffs and the politicians didn't want to spend, so no answer was a political ploy.
Yes the MMRCA saga was basically the govt. selling the IAF a a bigger dream than they actually had themselves only to tell them more than a decade later that they didn't have the money for it.
We all got conned. The BRF MMRCA thread ran forever. Not once did we hear its dropped, can't be funded etc. Instead trials trundled along abd then silence.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Vivek K »

Some of us said at the beginning that this is a pipe dream and that LCA is the MMRCA.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by suryag »

Thank you Karanm sir
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Atmavik »

Vivek K wrote:Some of us said at the beginning that this is a pipe dream and that LCA is the MMRCA.
So is the Mrfa.. no money only.. let the mk2 fly .. orders will come if the IAF wants to get to 40+ sqds
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Atmavik wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Some of us said at the beginning that this is a pipe dream and that LCA is the MMRCA.
So is the Mrfa.. no money only.. let the mk2 fly .. orders will come if the IAF wants to get to 40+ sqds
Mk2 will be realistically available for induction beginning in 2030. IAF cannot reach 40 squadrons even with Mk2. One possible way is to increase orders for Mk1A and spend liberally to expand production facilities for it keeping in mind that same production lines can be repurposed later for the Mk2. But the IAF must first agree to operate more squadrons of MK1A and the government must agree to spend the required amount of money for increasing production. Fat chance of either happening right now.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

MWF first flight is planned for 2023, and its expected to be ready by 2025, add a year and let's make it 2026. If HAL/ADA can stick to this time line, we will have 4 years to deliver around 2 squadrons worth by 2030. 4/8/12/16 ramp-up. If Tejas Mk1A is completed by 2028, then that line can be dedicated to the MWF too. And add an extra squadron. Optimistic, I know.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Karan M wrote:MWF first flight is planned for 2023, and its expected to be ready by 2025, add a year and let's make it 2026. If HAL/ADA can stick to this time line, we will have 4 years to deliver around 2 squadrons worth by 2030. 4/8/12/16 ramp-up. If Tejas Mk1A is completed by 2028, then that line can be dedicated to the MWF too. And add an extra squadron. Optimistic, I know.
Isn't 2 years from first flight to squadron service way too optimistic? Also, the 83 Mk1A order itself is expected to be finished only by around 2028 , serial production of MWF cannot begin before that. Add tot hat probable delays in actually signing the contract (remember how long it took for Mk1A?) So 2030 itself is optimistic according to me.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

I thought 2025 was optimistic too, so put 2026. If the MWF line is seperate they can start production before the Mk1A line stops production and repurpose that line for a ramp up. The contract signing delay IMHO right now had everything to do with the parlous state of our finances but we still managed to find the money this year after a two year delay. So the main thing that matters for the MWF is it be well funded. I hope the GOI clears a couple of additional Rafale squadrons, two Phalcons, approves the Su30 upgrade and drops the MRFA boondoggle. The rest of the money will be sufficient for all our other ambitions.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Pratyush »

Karan M wrote:MWF first flight is planned for 2023, and its expected to be ready by 2025, add a year and let's make it 2026. If HAL/ADA can stick to this time line, we will have 4 years to deliver around 2 squadrons worth by 2030. 4/8/12/16 ramp-up. If Tejas Mk1A is completed by 2028, then that line can be dedicated to the MWF too. And add an extra squadron. Optimistic, I know.
The industrial capacity is the biggest challenge. I think that once the first aircraft has flown and shown that it has no major defects. The IAF has to be told in no uncertain terms that they will have to take 250 + aircrafts in numbers.

If the industry knows that the aircraft has to be in service in large numbers and multi year budgetary support is available. Then it should be possible to get 250 aircrafts by 2032-33 in service with serial production commencing in 2025-26.

At which time the AMCA MK1 should be in advanced stages of flight trials and testing.

But this requires single minded determination and ruthless pursuit of national objectives.

An industry that can produce 150 aircrafts of all types per annum from 2025 can achieve an force level of 3750 aircrafts by 2050.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

I just hope we dont run out of funding, and this time around we support these programs properly.

IMHO the Tejas MWF will be equivalent to the F-16 Block 70/72, the Gripen E/F and will be very useful as a multi-role platform.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Vivek K »

If the IAF faces up to reality - it doesn't have the funding capacity of the USAF. Homegrown fighters like the LCA can be developed into potent world beaters. So instead of lusting after other's wives, focus on your own. Buy, steal techs to make your fighters top class. Stop importing and endangering national security.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

The key issue as always for the IAF is the ability to wage war at short notice.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Pratyush »

If it keeps lusting after phorign phiter all the time. It will never be able to accept domestic design because it will never be able develop the competence to handle the process to induct a domestic design fighters in an acceptable timeframe.
arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 353
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by arunsrinivasan »

One silver lining is that the Indian economy is poised to do very well in the next 10 years. If that happens, then some of the budgetary constraints will be reduced.

This year tax collections have exceeded projections & I read a news article which said all ministries have been asked to accelerate spending.
Last edited by arunsrinivasan on 16 Oct 2021 13:22, edited 1 time in total.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by LakshmanPST »

If everthing goes right, induction timelines of jets will be somewhat like below--->
Tejas Mk1A:- 2024-2029 (16 per year)
Tejas Mk2:- 2030-2040 (16 per year)
MRFA:- 2026-2035 (12 per year)
AMCA:- 2034-2042 (12 per year)

So, going forward, there will be two parallel lines running for the next two decades...
One Tejas line in HAL
Other MRFA/AMCA in Pvt. sector...

I guess this is how IAF is planning...
The only limiting factor seems to be money...
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

This is perfect and obvious part is IAF has to go for Rafale in MRFA but we should cap it to around 60 rafales or max 10BN $ and not a single penny more.
And if this is so obvious why waste precious time to run MRFA circus?

If MRFA is limited to 10BN$ - I don't see any reason why MWF can't be supported.

In peace time Tejas variants only will keep adding to savings which in turn give space for other budgetary constraints.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

This might sound stupid but if India wants Rafale production line in India and hence going for 114?
Instead just rally with close Asian allies to go for Rafale.
Get those remaining 60 numbers from allies.

This should also work, in fact it will make it more possible continuation of that line well till 2040.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

Just to keep strategic partners engaged with carrot of MRFA is going to back fire on us.
We simply don't have time to delay further orders and induction of new planes.

So it is better to accept the truth and face reality than worry about so called friends getting upset.
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

Another may be gibberish qn,
With Rafales why can't we go for 15 instead of 18 as sqdn strength?
With total of 90+ it will give 6 sqdns to us.

Is it going to make too much difference in sqdn capability?

On plus side we can have 1 more airbase with 2 sqdns of Rafale.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Barath »

What does gaming the number of planes in a squadron get you ?

Do air actions happen in unit of squadrons ? No.

Maintenance equipment may be at base, and spreading that across more home bases, might marginally increase maintenance costs or reduce effectivity if you increase number of squadrons while keeping number of planes same.

Squadrons will anyway be dispersed somewhat during wartime to prevent enemy strikes from taking out/blocking use of as many
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

:) I was wondering how number 20 per sqdn is decided.
And generalized that with earlier average 60% availability - at least 12 are expected to ready for operation.

And then imagined that with 80% availability , to have 12 ready - 15 per sqdn are enough :)

But good to know that just increasing sqdns for same numbers is not piece of cake.

Thanks for enlightenment !!
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Prem Kumar »

If the IAF is going for a higher medium-heavy mix because the Chinese are doing so, I am truly baffled:

1) Pakis made effective use of WLR - so we inducted the same
2) Pakis might get Abrams, so we draft a GSQR for Arjun. When Abrams don't materialize, we put Arjun in cold storage
3) If Chinese deploy light-tanks in Ladakh, we clamor for light-tanks
4) If PLAAF decides on a medium-heavy mix, we shall do the same

We are always in reactive mode vis-a-vis both our stronger & weaker adversaries

Are our Armed Forces leadership capable of original thought?
narmad
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 10 May 2005 09:47
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by narmad »

It is not just about the Armed Forces Leadership.
They have to justify the sanction of funds with the MOD. There has to be a credible threat for the bean-counters to approve.
It is tough fight in south block.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Vivek K »

Then India is always going to be unprepared.

If the Forces and their Chiefs cannot handle babus, how will they handle the schemes of enemy Generals? What Prem kumar has posted is an indictment of the state of leadership of the Indian Armed forces.
- We shouldn't buy the Arjuns because the enemy is deploying heavy tanks - but for superior armor protection and enhanced warfighting capabilities to give our warfighters the edge.
- What was the IAF's plan to upgrade their fleet? Buy Mig-21 bissss? Or Mig-21 Bison-x? Sukhois were not going to replace the 450 Mig-21s Plus 150 odd Mig 27, plus the Mig-23 squadrons. And what was the intent in calling the LCA a 3 legged cheetah? The LCA was ready in 2016. When were orders placed? Why so late? To help make the case for imports by stating it was the Rafales or bust? No plan B! What a dangerous game of brinkmanship!!
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

This is where we miss personas like Parrikar ji.
Kadi Ninda is not suitable for RM but we have strange benchmarks in political circle to decide the post.
Current DRDO chief Mr. Reddy must be given RM post and see the difference.
Or Mr. V K Singh ?
hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by hemant_sai »

We need RM who can effectively debate with armed forces leadership and not someone who will just be taking inputs as is.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by VinodTK »

hemant_sai wrote:This is where we miss personas like Parrikar ji.
Kadi Ninda is not suitable for RM but we have strange benchmarks in political circle to decide the post.
Current DRDO chief Mr. Reddy must be given RM post and see the difference.
Or Mr. V K Singh ?
++100%

Need a person who has some technical knowledge and strategic vision (like the late Manohar Parrikar)
otherwise; DM will be reading what the MOD officials prepare and present to him/her as talking points
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Karan M »

Prem Kumar wrote:If the IAF is going for a higher medium-heavy mix because the Chinese are doing so, I am truly baffled:

1) Pakis made effective use of WLR - so we inducted the same
2) Pakis might get Abrams, so we draft a GSQR for Arjun. When Abrams don't materialize, we put Arjun in cold storage
3) If Chinese deploy light-tanks in Ladakh, we clamor for light-tanks
4) If PLAAF decides on a medium-heavy mix, we shall do the same

We are always in reactive mode vis-a-vis both our stronger & weaker adversaries

Are our Armed Forces leadership capable of original thought?
You are overreacting here. If the adversary makes a move upwards then you have to counter. Original thoughts are not easily justified with low budgets. The IAF can have an original thought of buying a 1000 F-35s and developing the AMCA alongside. Can India afford the same?
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4040
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by suryag »

MP was a legend however, RS ji is not bad but may be MP's son UP could make a good MoS in MoD not aware what's happening with his machinations in Goa. The guy was trained to be an engineer and understands technology well
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by LakshmanPST »

Prem Kumar wrote:If the IAF is going for a higher medium-heavy mix because the Chinese are doing so, I am truly baffled:

----
4) If PLAAF decides on a medium-heavy mix, we shall do the same

We are always in reactive mode vis-a-vis both our stronger & weaker adversaries

Are our Armed Forces leadership capable of original thought?
While none of us really knows what factors IAF considered, all we can do is see general patterns and extrapolate them...

First of all every major airforce around the world has moved or is moving towards a medium-heavy mix since 1990s...
USAF, RuAF, PLAAF, Japan, Korea, France, UK...
No one is planning to use light fighters in near future... It was the general trend in all Air Forces and it would be wrong to assume that IAF was not studying the benefits of that move in late 1990s itself...

All I said was that IAF would have finally firmed up plans sometime in early 2000s, decided to ditch light category or limit the numbers of LCA and move towards Medium Weight Class...
Never said they did it as a knee jerk reaction to PLAAF doing something similar...
PLAAF moving towards a force structure full of J10+ jets would have definitely been a factor in IAF insisting on MWF category, as there are more jets at PLAAF's disposal capable of being deployed from Tibet against India, unlike 20 years back when PLAAF only had J7s and J8s...
-
So, my understanding is that IAF do not want more than 6 squadrons of Mk1s...
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by kit »

A good answer to all the above questions is an answer that was posted in BRF a long time back., acquisitions for armed forces should never be reactive. There needs to be strategic vision for acquisition of capabilities for at least a decade or beyond considering all possible technological innovations and capabilities of the countries in the neighbourhood. A national defence university was also proposed for training professionals wrt strategic thought and moves towards technological improvement in capabilities., military and industrial. Why do Chinese reports on Indian military advancements seem quite professionally written and researched?
Reactive acquisitions are harmful for nation building., its a quick fix option at best.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Bala Vignesh »

My understanding is that you plan a force structure depending on the strategy you want to adopt against an adversary.

For eg, Pakistan with its relatively shallow depth and the kind if force parity we enjoy, one can have a light-medium mix where the light aircraft perform local AD and maybe escort strike packages to target areas behind the frontlines as and when required as the distance to traverse from staging areas are not that far off while the strike assets are medium aircraft which can either deploy further or carry heavier ammunition to the same distance as the light aircraft.

Against China, the light aircraft is limited to only local AD and any action behind frontlines will be out of range for them and will require a medium or heavy aircraft to engage.

:idea: :idea: :idea: Just realized something.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by k prasad »

Prem Kumar wrote:If the IAF is going for a higher medium-heavy mix because the Chinese are doing so, I am truly baffled:

1) Pakis made effective use of WLR - so we inducted the same
2) Pakis might get Abrams, so we draft a GSQR for Arjun. When Abrams don't materialize, we put Arjun in cold storage
3) If Chinese deploy light-tanks in Ladakh, we clamor for light-tanks
4) If PLAAF decides on a medium-heavy mix, we shall do the same

We are always in reactive mode vis-a-vis both our stronger & weaker adversaries

Are our Armed Forces leadership capable of original thought?
I agree with your general point, prem-saar, but one tiny nitpick for accuracy... India had plans for WLR acquisition for some time before Kargil, and had firmed up on the AN/TPQ-37, I believe, but that got nixed when we were hit with sanctions.

Around the mid-90s, DRDO was also starting to look at an indigenous WLR based on the Rajendra radar, when they noticed that during trials, it was able to track shells being fired nearby, and it was assumed that a conversion to WLR would be relatively simple (which it wasn't). DRDO also pushed hard for the indigenous development, so the combination of factors conspired to leave us without a WLR till well after Kargil. Not to mention general lack of speed in actually approving the project. Babugiri at its finest.

Still, looking at the development timeline of Swathi, it was still a relatively fast development timeline from project approval (2002) to trials (2005) to acceptance (2006-07). And now we even have export success with it.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by fanne »

Bala Vignesh wrote:My understanding is that you plan a force structure depending on the strategy you want to adopt against an adversary.

Against China, the light aircraft is limited to only local AD and any action behind frontlines will be out of range for them and will require a medium or heavy aircraft to engage.

:idea: :idea: :idea: Just realized something.
Most of China defense establishment in Tibet is less than 200 KM from the border. In fact 70% of them are within 75 km of the border. All skrimish point that may need air to ground support will be 0 KM from border. However, it can be safely assume that on an average any airfield will be at least 200 KM behind the Tibet border (owing to Himalayas). I think our LCA will be able to reach all these targets.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by nachiket »

Bala Vignesh wrote:My understanding is that you plan a force structure depending on the strategy you want to adopt against an adversary.

For eg, Pakistan with its relatively shallow depth and the kind if force parity we enjoy, one can have a light-medium mix where the light aircraft perform local AD and maybe escort strike packages to target areas behind the frontlines as and when required as the distance to traverse from staging areas are not that far off while the strike assets are medium aircraft which can either deploy further or carry heavier ammunition to the same distance as the light aircraft.

Against China, the light aircraft is limited to only local AD and any action behind frontlines will be out of range for them and will require a medium or heavy aircraft to engage.

:idea: :idea: :idea: Just realized something.
Having a light aircraft is infinitely better than having none, which is the real choice facing the IAF. We simply do not have the finances to procure and operate 42 squadrons with a medium-heavy mix. If the defensive CAP and short range strike duties are handled by large numbers of light aircraft the medium and heavy ones can be left free for the other long range offensive missions. And let's be honest here. The IFR capable Tejas Mk1/Mk1A is a far cry from the Mig-21 Bison in terms of all-round capability. So all "light" aircraft are not created equal. And if light aircraft were not so useful, the IAF wouldn't still be clinging on to their Bisons which are clearly way past their lifespan despite the heightened risk to pilots.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by YashG »

Tejas armed with Astra & AESA, locking F16s at ranges slightly longer or equal to Amraam C5, will keep almost all of PAF cornered. How bad is that ?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Pratyush »

YashG wrote:Tejas armed with Astra & AESA, locking F16s at ranges slightly longer or equal to Amraam C5, will keep almost all of PAF cornered. How bad is that ?

It's may be good enough for you.

But it's not Rafale. The silver bullet.
RKumar

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by RKumar »

Pratyush wrote:
YashG wrote:Tejas armed with Astra & AESA, locking F16s at ranges slightly longer or equal to Amraam C5, will keep almost all of PAF cornered. How bad is that ?

It's may be good enough for you.

But it's not Rafale. The silver bullet.
What IAF want to counter a ragtag PAF? If only Rafale is the silver bullet and the answer to all the miseries then please decommission the Mirages, Jaguars, Mig-29 and Su-30 - then why keep those flying. GoI will save the Capex and Opex. Why the hell bother to buy second-hand Mig-29 and ordering 12 new Su-30, if those are not good enough?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Post by Pratyush »

No one said they are not good enough. The comment was in context of the Tejas only.
Post Reply