Indian Military Aviation

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Dec 2010 12:23

High cost of Indian Mirage 2000 fighter upgrade causing a rethink
Defenseworld

French President Nicholas Sarkozy may miss signing of the Mirage 2000 upgrade deal with the Indian Air Force (IAF) during his visit to India. While officially, “negotiations are still going on”, according India’s senior foreign ministry officials, the reason for the delay seems to be that the high cost of upgrading the fighters is causing a rethink, informed sources told defenseworld.net.

The cost of upgrading the 51 fighters is working out to an average of Euro 45 million per piece which is well over the price of acquiring a new generation fighter such as the Rafale or F-16 which is around Euro 30million-35 million. India is seeking to upgrade the fighters with Beyond Visual Range (BVR) capabilities, Look-down, shoot-down capabilities, Advanced Electronic Counter Counter Measures (ECCM) and Multi-target, multi-shoot capabilities.

The total cost is around Euro 2.4 billion of which work worth Euro 1.5 billon will be directly with the French company Dassault and the rest for work done and equipment supplied by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). In comparison, India signed a similar upgrade contract for 62 MiG-29 fighters in 2008 for around $850 million which works to $13.71 million (Euro 10.28 million approximately) per fighter.

Further, the bulk of the IAF Mirage 2000 fleet was acquired in 1986-87 which makes it over 20 year old. The upgradation process is expected to take 7-9 year and residual life of the airframe after the upgrade will be about 15-10 years. A new fighter instead will have a life of 30 plus years

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Dec 2010 12:31

Perhaps its time to drop the very expensive euro 2.4 billion upgrade for Mirages and opt for cost effective Israel upgrade at 1/3 of the cost.
Money saved can be used to buy MMRCA winner to replace the Mirages.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Dec 2010 12:52

2.4 billion Euro = 3.17 billion USD
@45 million a pop MKI means 69 new MKI's ??
or
@23 million a LCA equals 135 new shiny MK-1 LCA.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Dec 2010 12:52

Austin wrote:Perhaps its time to drop the very expensive euro 2.4 billion upgrade for Mirages and opt for cost effective Israel upgrade at 1/3 of the cost.Money saved can be used to buy MMRCA winner to replace the Mirages.

That was the plan all along until sarko waved his magic wand..

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 13:09

Good,

It seems that the French have priced themselves out of the upgrade market.

PS Can the overhaul facility for the M2k in Gawalier support the IAF fleet in case the French sanction the aircraft.

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Dec 2010 13:57

negi wrote:Why can't we have both ? Seriously the point about having a large airbases is very much valid take for example the case of Dabolim airport in INS Hansa (Goa) it is supposed to have IN's major air station in the western (Karwar is still in works) and it has to share the airstrip and the supporting infrastructure with the civilian airline operators it is only a matter of time that pressure on the airport to accommodate more civilian flights would increase, the reason/justification for planning larger airbases is on the similar lines of need to have broader roads with more lanes in India i.e. in the longer run they are able to sustain the increase in traffic .

Yes. There is always an optimal balance that has to be found.

The concept of a large AFS acting like a hub is already widely used by commercial airlines and air cargo freighters. For example, FedEx has its main hub in Memphis. It routes every package that it gets to Memphis where the packages are sorted and loaded into cargo planes heading for the end-destination points. They found that this way of doing it is the most efficient and cost-effective.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2010 14:04

srai wrote: The concept of a large AFS acting like a hub is already widely used by commercial airlines and air cargo freighters. For example, FedEx has its main hub in Memphis. It routes every package that it gets to Memphis where the packages are sorted and loaded into cargo planes heading for the end-destination points. They found that this way of doing it is the most efficient and cost-effective.

Where is Memphis?

srai · Post by **srai** » 04 Dec 2010 14:10

shiv wrote:
srai wrote: The concept of a large AFS acting like a hub is already widely used by commercial airlines and air cargo freighters. For example, FedEx has its main hub in Memphis. It routes every package that it gets to Memphis where the packages are sorted and loaded into cargo planes heading for the end-destination points. They found that this way of doing it is the most efficient and cost-effective.
Where is Memphis?

I don't know if you are being sarcastic here or not. If you don't know, just google it

Here are some readings for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoke-hub_ ... n_paradigm

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2010 14:55

realistically a brand new MKI likely cost $65 mil and a Tejas Mk1 $40 mil. there is no contest between the upg-M2k and the MKI - the MKI is costlier, more complex, needs two engines and two pilots and delivers N times the impact.

the real thinking should be fund more number of Tejas Mk1 or go with this Mirage upg at same cost but on 20-25 yr old airframes compared to zero hr on the Tejas. if the residual life of the M2k is 15 yrs after upg and that of Tejas is 40 yrs - barring the engine (404 vs 414) we can pretty much update the Tejas mk1 any way we want twice in its expected lifetime and get a service life of 3X for the same money.

note the EL-2032 now in Tejas mk1 was considered good enough by the IDF to request the Sufa (block52 F-solah) be allowed to fit it which the US denied as it involved US donated funds...the APG68v9 (same as the new paki f-solah) was used by default instead.

it will feature the same Litening pod, a better cockpit layout and avionics, the best of Indo-Israeli EW, python5/R73 and a bvr missile (R77 possibly to start, later Astra).

except in raw top speed, I dont know if the upg-M2K can beat the Tejas mk1 significantly in other benchmarks? the upg M2k is also supposed to have the cut rate RDY3 radar (the same radar originally proposed for the Bandar) and not the costlier RDY2 (seen on M2K-5) allegedly costing $9 mil each.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1001.html

I saw we give Sarko the usual daal , roast lamb and naans at bukhara and send him home on a full stomach and empty pocket

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 15:01

I think Shiv jis question was asked to understand the relavence of the Fed Ex model for the IAF.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 15:04

Singha,

Alternatively, why can't the M2k be upgraded with the combat suit of the Tejas. Do that and get it over and done with.

JMT.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2010 15:28

srai wrote:

I don't know if you are being sarcastic here or not. If you don't know, just google it

Here are some readings for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoke-hub_ ... n_paradigm

Gee thanks. So Memphis is in America and Fedex uses the hub model So the IAF should copy that model. Right?
But this is what I said at the very beginning:

The Americans are powerful
They have huge air bases
Therefore having huge air bases will make us like Americans
It will make us powerful.
I am not interested in why the Americans have such large bases and why we don't.

I could add to that "Fedex uses Memphis as hub and I am sure the IAF should adopt that concept - not having been exposed to the idea perhaps?"

Please. I really am being sarcastic. You haven't said anything about why India should set up huge air bases on the Ramstein model yet. I am now getting increasingly interested in why India should do that - apart from the fact that the US is doing it. I have spent so many decades of my life being told that India should do things like the US just because the US does it and the US is undoubtedly great. I used to take this as sage advice in the past. But now I'm asking why? Can you say why? Why should India do something the American way? Doesn't the US do things that suit the US? If so why should India do things that have suited the US without any information being given about whether it suits India or not.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 16:18

Let me try and reason for a ramstine type AIR Base in India.

Don't ask me to proove it

The year is 2050/75. TSP has been taken down and is under Indian contol. India has military presence from Gibralter in the West to Japan in the east. With active on going military operations in the regions of Interest (Add your favourate non TSP far off region).

In this situation the military will need continous supplies form Main land India. Bulky supplies can be sent using ships. But there will still be supplies which require quick transit. With commitments as broad as ones listed above. Ramistine type base become a viable investment for the IAF.

Regarding the FED EX model, it can be replicated by the PVt carriers in India in the next 5 years or so it self. Cap' Gopinath. Has planes to start a cargo airline with Nagpur as his Hub. Reliance (dont remember which bro) Had planes to start cargo dilivery airline for overnight dilivery accross the country. Don't Know the current status for either of the plans.

The point is Pvt sector will cater to this if the demand exist.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2010 16:28

even stuff like a mounted tyre on wheel of the AL 4x4 Stallion truck a mainstay of our infantry transport is a huge bulky piece of gear...and by rights probably needs a safety cage around it when inflating...people have got killed in kuwait logistical hubs changing tires of hemtt trucks.

with a good backward integration to 'contractors' and factories this type of job can be shipped direct from AL Hosur to HAL airport to anywhere needed near the frontline.

my vision is IA outsources much of these logistical tasks - repair and maintainence of truck type gear , food supplies , accounting, stores to pvt contractors and factories in the coming decades rather than rely on ad-hoc chartered fleets of trucks, its own men & materials etc. and its always cheaper to centralize these things down in the plains close to ecosystem of suppliers, labour, transport links, factories. wage and pension bills will come down. pvt charter air cargo carriers can do much of what is done by IL76 today like ferrying people and post back from NER on leave, taking supplies of spares and medicines, tinned foods etc.....almost anything can be palletized, automatically sorted and routed these days...they cannot operate from the austere siberian style bases IL76 can - they need some major civilian style infra to deliver throughput...bigger and more efficient the better.

we need to have our own BlackWater and DynCorp types .....

IA can have less headaches and focus on the teeth part of it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2010 16:43

Pratyush wrote:Let me try and reason for a ramstine type AIR Base in India.

Don't ask me to proove it

The year is 2050/75. TSP has been taken down and is under Indian contol. India has military presence from Gibralter in the West to Japan in the east. With active on going military operations in the regions of Interest (Add your favourate non TSP far off region).

In this situation the military will need continous supplies form Main land India. Bulky supplies can be sent using ships. But there will still be supplies which require quick transit. With commitments as broad as ones listed above. Ramistine type base become a viable investment for the IAF. .

Naah. Why send from the mainland? Just loot whatever is there in the country which we occupy. No need for military also. It's called globalization. Let some private corporation do it. The Americans are doing exactly that so it must be right.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2010 16:46

we do not want to end up like IBM or Motorola - strong in engineering but blindsided by changes around them. 5 yrs ago if someone had mentioned that 'facebook integration' would be a desired feature in most cellphones people'd have been rotflmao....but it has happened.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 16:47

shiv wrote: Naah. Why send from the mainland? Just loot whatever is there in the country which we occupy. No need for military also. It's called globalization. Let some private corporation do it. The Americans are doing exactly that so it must be right.

Just cause the Khans are doing some thing doesnot makes it right.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Dec 2010 16:49

Pratyush wrote:
Just cause the Khans are doing some thing doesnot makes it right.

What rubbish. Go wash your mouth

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 17:05

shiv wrote: What rubbish. Go wash your mouth

I like what is comming out of my mouth. So thanks but I think not.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Dec 2010 19:39

using my deep knalege of kids cartoons let me present two ogres from the Ben10 alien force pantheon

Humongasaur http://www.toys-games-store.com/images/ ... 4O1Y-L.jpg
Rath http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/300W/i/ ... seBoot.jpg

do they need to be as big as well equipped to raise hell ? probably not...but the INTIMIDATION factor definitely helps.

so PRC builds a 16,000ft runway in some desolate dry salt lake in tibet using labour sourced from re-education camps and rocks from mines holding tibetan dissidents...and immediately BRF / Heritage foundation / internet analysts are on it seeing the deep dark konspiracy behind it.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 04 Dec 2010 22:32

except in raw top speed, I dont know if the upg-M2K can beat the Tejas mk1 significantly in other benchmarks?

Singha Sir are you really serious about this? Tejas is equal to upgraded M2k and all because it has EL2032? The Mirage 2000 is heavier (more internal fuel) with a heavier weapon load, in fact a robust strike platform which includes N strike. Considering that the range/payload and actual operational performance of our beloved Tejas is up in the air for now, this statement is pretty much a rhetorical sounding in my humble opinion.

Tejas Mk2 now that will be another league alltogether.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Dec 2010 23:19

the difference is not as much as you are making it out to be.

raw fuel capacity is irrelevant unless we know the range. NFTC pilots have gone on record that the Mk1 has only a little less range than the M2k.
M2k is underpowered compared to the Mk1 and the costly upg will do nothing to rectify that.
all the factors that make M2k a robust strike platform are already there on the tejas or in the process of being added. sure, it has a heavier weapon load but how many fighters actually go to war at full MTOW ? next to zero ?
think of a representative A2G load out and you will find that both M2k and tejas can handle it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Dec 2010 01:21

The concept of a hub for airlines/freighters using "Spoke-Hub Distribution Model" is a widely used concept. Since there seems to be a fixation on the whole "don't wanna be like American" thing, here are some non-American examples of hubs: Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Dubai, Doha, Frankfurt, London, etc. In India, Mumbai and Delhi are major hubs. It's not just an "American thing".

Since we are just going to repeat the same arguments/sarcasms over and over again, I rest my case on this issue here.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 05 Dec 2010 02:02

M2k is underpowered compared to the Mk1

If that is so why didnt they change the engine on later Mirage variants, like we are doing with our own Tejas?

NFTC pilots have gone on record that the Mk1 has only a little less range than the M2k.

Tejas has little less range than M2000 which has little less range than Su-30 which has little less range than B-52.....

raw fuel capacity is irrelevant unless we know the range

Very correct like the huge raw internal fuel capacity of Su-30 is irrelevent. Maybe fuel apacity is hardly a factor in operational range.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Dec 2010 02:11

Load of bull Shanksinha. Have you seen the price that the French are asking for the M2k upg? We can all imagine what they would ask for if an engine change was also a part of the package. SU-30 plays a different role and needs longer legs. Perhaps a better comparison would be with the Mig -21s and their op role.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 05 Dec 2010 02:23

^^ You are welcome to your draw your opinions Vivek Sir. But let me clarify here. Where have I said anything about M2k upgrade package at all? If you want my opinion on it its sort of vulgarly priced and will be a waste of tax payer's money.

The only thing I said is that capability wise the Tejas MK1 it its present form is not really equal to the Mirage 2000 even without the upgrade. Post IOC and as and when the flight envelope is expanded maybe it will bridge the gap, maybe not. I certainly hope it does. But to say that the Tejas LSP has EL 2032 radar so its better than M2000 is BULL in my opinion.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Dec 2010 02:25

shanksinha, your rather facile remark notwithstanding, the fact is that the ranges of LCA and M2k are comparable. the MKI is in another league altogether.

Very correct like the huge raw internal fuel capacity of Su-30 is irrelevent. Maybe fuel apacity is hardly a factor in operational range.

may be if you tried to understand what I was saying instead of taking this as a personal slight you would have known that raw fuel capacity data is useless without knowing at what rate the engines consume fuel and thereby determine the range of the aircraft.
or do you think su-30's 'huge raw internal fuel capacity' means the same when carried by a B-52 ?

btw, if you can't participate in a simple discussion without turning it into an ego-fight I would advice you to stay away.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 05 Dec 2010 02:41

Rahul M, ofcourse the raw fuel data is useless as you point out so clearly. But I am not comparing B-52 with Su30 here. Both the M2000 and Tejas are comparable in engine power and over all size etc. Anyway, what I say is that range (op radius) of Tejas (apart from vague little less little more criteria) is indeterminate as of now as compared to M2000, so to say that Tejas is laregly equal to M2000 is similarly vague.

Its never a personal ego fight for me, unless you want to make it one.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Dec 2010 03:04

I don't think we can get Tejas Mk1s in so fast.

Get the Israeli upgrades. Pool up some money with the saved money and buy those UAE and Qatari Mirages I say

.
Paisa wasool + squadrons of tested & operated planes in a flash!

France would get it first Rafale exports! Win-win for everybody?!!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 05 Dec 2010 05:59

IAF To Get First Akash Squadron Next Month
Aviation Week

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2010 07:58

both the Mirage and Tejas in strike role will likely operate with 2 drop tanks which should bring in adequate range. the newer Mirages use larger drop tanks and three of them - but this imo will have a serious affect on manouverability probably and if forced to 'drop' the drop tanks far away from home might be tough to get back.

weapons are becoming smaller and smaller - yesterday's 2000lb job is getting done by todays 1000lb. In Kargil, M2K dropped 6 x 1000lb ccip bomb each in that one major raid on the paki logisitics camp in the snow(muntho dalo). if Tejas can do that should be ok. 6 bombs + 1 laser pod + 2 aam is a good strike loadout.

IN20 engine(54/85 kn) is as powerful than M53(54/85 kn). and Tejas empty weight is lighter. there was a spreadsheet made by a BR member based on the wing and other dimensions of M2k, Tejas, F-solah and Bandar which indicated the wing loading of Tejas less, corner velocity more, ... etc etc....

to settle the issue once and for all, after IOC the IAF should fly in 4 M2K from #1 Tigers , kit them up in identical payloads for various missions and compare the performance of the two planes and also go 1:1 , 2:2 and 4:4 DACT in bvr and wvr and more importantly publish all the results so that we know what are the pros and cons of Mk1 to fix in Mk2.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 05 Dec 2010 09:00

India offered Armed version of Dhruv to Afghan after embassy bombing :Wikileaks

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 05 Dec 2010 10:21

^^ You have hit the nail on the head Singha Sir. I as a not too bright layman am always confused with this "Tejas is Underpowered" song routine. On paper things look very much adequate for Tejas to emerge as nimble multirole fighter.
As you rightly pointed out, the thrust to weight ratio of Tejas is better than the Mirage and comparable to Gripen. So that shouldn’t be a problem at all. But then maneuverability isn’t only about thrust to weight ratio and many factors come into play. I am confident that once IOC is attained and IAF gets the opportunity to play around with the bird we shall see the desirable expansion in the flight envelope. Till that time all comparisons will be largely anecdotal.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2010 10:22

So, M2k upgrade is far too expensive is it? Very clever - Sarko/GOI seem to be indulging in rather elaborate scheme. M2k upg is so expensive, that it is rougly = Rafale! The article posted by Shuklaji even suggests this! Wah kya chaal chali hai.

40 SFC a/c - here comes the Rafale. Afterall, the French being old allies need to be assured that part of the cake is theirs too - there is plenty of cake for all to take! Expect Sarko to pocket another $ 5-10 billion just as Obama did. Russians are next in line - even bigger bake sales going on there. Israel will want something - M2K upg bringing it on par with Tejas - expect same weapons package (Astra/Derby/R77 + Python) makes for fine light pastry.

Nice even distribution. Oh, I was phorgetting - MRCA is meant for the oiropean menagerie - $ 12 billion divvied up nicely between German/British et al. OR, if they want to keep it L1 - cheap - $$s go to Sweden, a few to US (GE) and a bit to UK (Selex).

Bhai, this is INdian hospitality aphterall - everyone is treated well.

Added l8r: Of course it could mean that India buys some more Scorpenes.

CM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2010 10:30

The 40 strike fighter for SFC will in all likelyhood go to the modified MKI, infact the 42 MKI each costing $100 million is speculated to be for the SFC.
IIRC there was a statement that IAF would like to opt for a familiar aircraft.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 05 Dec 2010 10:44

Austin wrote:The 40 strike fighter for SFC will in all likelyhood go to the modified MKI, infact the 42 MKI each costing $100 million is speculated to be for the SFC.
IIRC there was a statement that IAF would like to opt for a familiar aircraft.

In that case French will be mollified with something else. The way I see it, India won't just suddenly award a new found ally $ 10 - 15 billion worth in weapons and not reciprocate similarly for ahem, older friends. That kind of stuff just leaves a bad taste, wot? Don't want to upset sensibilities do you?

France is going to get some baksheesh one way or another - question is what? Mirage 2000 deal is too little - peanuts, at a minimum almonds need to be offered ($ 5-10 b) - what kind of hospitality is this? Bhookha marogay kya? Sorry, but that is allowed wonlee for ghar ki moorgi.

Rafale for SFC? Rafale for MRCA? No Rafale? Scorpene perhaps? Lafayette class ?
Lafayette + Scorp + M2k?

CM

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Dec 2010 10:54

The french have recently won scorpene deal , the M2K deal will go through since IAF likes the aircraft , may be LUH competition is another strong contention.
Plus there is a lot happening on navy,army and nuclear front.

Compared to its strategic reach size and its dealings with paki they are overfed.

But they do have competitive products and would have won on its merits.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 05 Dec 2010 11:53

Cain Marko wrote:So, M2k upgrade is far too expensive is it? Very clever - Sarko/GOI seem to be indulging in rather elaborate scheme. M2k upg is so expensive, that it is rougly = Rafale! The article posted by Shuklaji even suggests this! Wah kya chaal chali hai.

Expect it to go through anyways. I personally don't prefer it as it will take 7-8 years for the upgradation to finish but the airframe has only 15 years to go. Not a good investment.

Cain Marko wrote:40 SFC a/c - here comes the Rafale. Afterall, the French being old allies need to be assured that part of the cake is theirs too - there is plenty of cake for all to take! Expect Sarko to pocket another $ 5-10 billion just as Obama did. Russians are next in line - even bigger bake sales going on there. Israel will want something - M2K upg bringing it on par with Tejas - expect same weapons package (Astra/Derby/R77 + Python) makes for fine light pastry.

French have already won a mega deal(scorpene), they will have to wait in line to get a really big share once again. May be the SAM project is what India is given them for now. The Russian will win big for sure, its safe to say that they have Amur deal and PAK-FA deal in bag (both worth more than 10000 crores). The Isreali's have many things going for them with various missile orders, JV's etc. Also Israel is India's preferred partner for any JV stuff so expect them to bag more deals when the AMCA gathers more steam.

Cain Marko wrote:Nice even distribution. Oh, I was phorgetting - MRCA is meant for the oiropean menagerie - $ 12 billion divvied up nicely between German/British et al. OR, if they want to keep it L1 - cheap - $$s go to Sweden, a few to US (GE) and a bit to UK (Selex).

Bhai, this is INdian hospitality aphterall - everyone is treated well.

CM.

US completes the equation with MMRCA win for the F/A-18SH which does the job and fits the bill.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 05 Dec 2010 20:09

Areva has already been given the Jatipur site in Maharashtra for their 1800MW reactors. IIRC upto 6 such reactors will be setup eventually at that site.

That alone is worth a cool $10-12 billion just there.

Also once the NSG floodgates to N related tech transfers to India were lifted, all NPPs and N related labs can be expected to source material from Ouirope with the French, Russians and the Germans being the major beneficiaries.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Dec 2010 21:35

shanksinha wrote:Rahul M, ofcourse the raw fuel data is useless as you point out so clearly.
of course, I guess that's why you feel a need to repeatedly twist what I said into something I did not.

But I am not comparing B-52 with Su30 here.
of course you are not. but comparing M2k and LCA on raw fuel capacity alone is as stupid as comparing that for B52 and Su30. the difference is only in degrees, the nature of the ignorance that leads to such stupidity remains same.
Both the M2000 and Tejas are comparable in engine power and over all size etc.
yet you didn't bother to actually quantify how comparable any of those were, beyond mentioning for our benefit that they were comparable, which all of us knew anyway.
had you actually bothered to do some calculations instead of throwing misguided sarcastic barbs, it would have been quite clear to you how raw fuel data alone is insufficient. I'll come back to this.
Anyway, what I say is that range (op radius) of Tejas (apart from vague little less little more criteria) is indeterminate as of now as compared to M2000, so to say that Tejas is laregly equal to M2000 is similarly vague.
indeterminate compared to M2k ? and you know the exact range of M2k ? with what payload, under what conditions and at what flight profile ?
let me let you in on a little secret, ALL range data (barring very very few) are vague, deliberately kept so by their OEMs and operators. exact analysis is impossible without detailed knowledge of the aerodynamic characteristics and a host of other factors.

that said, we can compare ranges of two aircraft in a very basic way with two important parameters, fuel fraction and SFC of their engines.
for LCA
fuel fraction = 2486/9500 = 0.262
SFC : 82.6 kg/(kN·h) dry
177.5 kg/(kN·h) full reheat

for M2k
fuel fraction = 3182/(anything between 11000 to 13800 kg. conflicting figures exist) = 0.289 to 0.23
for the purposes of this analysis let's assume it is near the midpoint of the 2 figures i.e 0.259
SFC : 90 kg/(kN·h) dry
210 kg/(kN·h) full reheat

so what do we see, the fuel fraction for both aircraft are very nearly the same, what we have to keep in mind is that the M53 is a generation older than the F404 and burns fuel at a much higher rate.
in ten minutes at full military thrust
the LCA will burn ~ 715.8 kg of fuel IOW 28.8% of its internal fuel load.
in the same time, the M2k will burn 960 kg i.e 30.1% of its internal fuel.

not much to choose, is there ?

Its never a personal ego fight for me, unless you want to make it one.
I see, that must be the reason you prefer sarcastic jibes in replying to a sober discussion