I would caution that sdf members get into a big fight here on china vs India. There is really no need to compare the two. China is doing well. If our friend here thinks India is also doing well, then that's great. Let's keep the topic on just India military itself please.
The problem is that our friend is not content with thinking India is doing well — he is crapping all over China, Sweden, Pakistan, South Korea, etc. just to make his point.
Also, for a self-claimed Nepalese who thinks all Indians and Pakistanis are horrible racists he sure has a lot vested in Indian defense equipment. If someone so much as looks at Tejas funny he reacts like his mom got murdered.
The problem is that our friend is not content with thinking India is doing well — he is crapping all over China, Sweden, Pakistan, South Korea, etc. just to make his point.
Also, for a self-claimed Nepalese who thinks all Indians and Pakistanis are horrible racists he sure has a lot vested in Indian defense equipment. If someone so much as looks at Tejas funny he reacts like his mom got murdered.
I would be careful avoiding ">" markers - they're pointless in this particular regard. Those are different for different countries.
As a simple/stupid example, Tejas easily fits reinforced bunkers made for mig-21s, others (maybe other than Gripen) - don't.
I.e. for a generally sufficient modern fighter (which Tejas 1a promises to be if everything works as advertised), you - as India - can place Tejas on a scramble alert near the northern and north-western borders, but you can't really do the same with others without a huge infrastructure investment or accepting a completely different operational doctrine.
This is especially true, since Indian Hi/Med/Lo is in fact (very)Hi/Lo: the core of IAF is made of flankers (huge, difficult to operate), med is now being replaced by rafales(med, modern western-level of maintenance pain). Small, sparrow-ish Tejas looks superbly simple against such a background.
As for everything else - well, yes, others are better? Probably. Tejas 1a still can be described as a "modern 4+ gen supersonic fighter with reduced signature/adequate EW, AESA, adequate data linking, and modern weapon capability".
Let us take the Ukrainian example: Su-27 is overall superior to Mig-29. It flies much further, carries 3 times the number of heavy missiles, has better radar and so on - but it's huge(geometrically and RCS-wise) and bothersome from the maintenance point of view.
But, first of all, much of this superiority doesn't really matters. If the Ukrainian Su-27 will try to use its huge arsenal - it will simply be taken out by Russian air or GBAD. There is no exploitable deep strike in this theater - for the same reasons. Every flight towards the line of contact runs against the clock - the faster you're in and out, the less the warning - the more likely is your survival.
Many small sorties >>> fewer big ones. In this case, your routine missions are close escort, sead and strike. In and out, 15-minute adventure.
For those missions, Fulcrum and Flanker bring in similar level of capability. Which makes them sorta equal when in air.
Despite ">" of the Flanker. But this equality means not that they're the same - it actually magnifies the superiority of the worse (simpler) fighter.
Mig-29s(and su-25s) can relatively routinely base and operate from theater airfields(and survive on ground) - and have to be taken out in the air. You can hide them in reinforced covers, you can service them in reinforced covers, you can hide them under trees, you can sneakily service them on aircraft graveyards, where it is hard to tell apart live unit from a dead hulk.
Flankers operate mostly operate from deep parts of Ukraine and mostly don't use vulnerable airfields for more than a pit stop - otherwise, Russian ISR will catch up, as you can't reliably hide something this large(or working on something this large). It happened in the past, with painful losses both in equipment, pilots, and ground crew.
As a result - the amount of resources that takes for a ">" flanker to get one sortie into the combat area in practice is enough for fulcrum to fly 3-4. And it actually translates into such a ratio.
And Tejas is much smaller still than the fulcrum (half the fuel requirement, much easier access to the airframe, etc).
p.s. strictly speaking, this equation works even against Russian su-35s, which are both on a completely technical level, to the point that direct air combat with intention of win(scoring an a2a kill) is essentially pointless. But...it doesn't matter. The theater is formed by the overwhelming GBAD threat. Thus still moving us back to the same equation - getting a fulcrum sortie out is just simpler and cheaper than a big ">" one - even when the former operate from forward airfields, and the latter - from the comfort of their home bases. Quite a low practical evaluation for a fighter that is essentially untouchable(!) for Ukrainian AF, as you can see.
I would be careful avoiding ">" markers - they're pointless in this particular regard. Those are different for different countries.
As a simple/stupid example, Tejas easily fits reinforced bunkers made for mig-21s, others (maybe other than Gripen) - don't.
I.e. for a generally sufficient modern fighter (which Tejas 1a promises to be if everything works as advertised), you - as India - can place Tejas on a scramble alert near the northern and north-western borders, but you can't really do the same with others without a huge infrastructure investment or accepting a completely different operational doctrine.
This is especially true, since Indian Hi/Med/Lo is in fact (very)Hi/Lo: the core of IAF is made of flankers (huge, difficult to operate), med is now being replaced by rafales(med, modern western-level of maintenance pain). Small, sparrow-ish Tejas looks superbly simple against such a background.
As for everything else - well, yes, others are better? Probably. Tejas 1a still can be described as a "modern 4+ gen supersonic fighter with reduced signature/adequate EW, AESA, adequate data linking, and modern weapon capability".
Let us take the Ukrainian example: Su-27 is overall superior to Mig-29. It flies much further, carries 3 times the number of heavy missiles, has better radar and so on - but it's huge(geometrically and RCS-wise) and bothersome from the maintenance point of view.
But, first of all, much of this superiority doesn't really matters. If the Ukrainian Su-27 will try to use its huge arsenal - it will simply be taken out by Russian air or GBAD. There is no exploitable deep strike in this theater - for the same reasons. Every flight towards the line of contact runs against the clock - the faster you're in and out, the less the warning - the more likely is your survival.
Many small sorties >>> fewer big ones. In this case, your routine missions are close escort, sead and strike. In and out, 15-minute adventure.
For those missions, Fulcrum and Flanker bring in similar level of capability. Which makes them sorta equal when in air.
Despite ">" of the Flanker. But this equality means not that they're the same - it actually magnifies the superiority of the worse (simpler) fighter.
Mig-29s(and su-25s) can relatively routinely base and operate from theater airfields(and survive on ground) - and have to be taken out in the air. You can hide them in reinforced covers, you can service them in reinforced covers, you can hide them under trees, you can sneakily service them on aircraft graveyards, where it is hard to tell apart live unit from a dead hulk.
Flankers operate mostly operate from deep parts of Ukraine and mostly don't use vulnerable airfields for more than a pit stop - otherwise, Russian ISR will catch up, as you can't reliably hide something this large(or working on something this large). It happened in the past, with painful losses both in equipment, pilots, and ground crew.
As a result - the amount of resources that takes for a ">" flanker to get one sortie into the combat area in practice is enough for fulcrum to fly 3-4. And it actually translates into such a ratio.
And Tejas is much smaller still than the fulcrum (half the fuel requirement, much easier access to the airframe, etc).
p.s. strictly speaking, this equation works even against Russian su-35s, which are both on a completely technical level, to the point that direct air combat with intention of win(scoring an a2a kill) is essentially pointless. But...it doesn't matter. The theater is formed by the overwhelming GBAD threat. Thus still moving us back to the same equation - getting a fulcrum sortie out is just simpler and cheaper than a big ">" one - even when the former operate from forward airfields, and the latter - from the comfort of their home bases. Quite a low practical evaluation for a fighter that is essentially untouchable(!) for Ukrainian AF, as you can see.
You actually brought up a very good point in your rebuttal. Where are Tejas currently stationed right now? For a supposedly crappy junk heap the JF-17, closest analogue to Tejas, has been deployed to the frontlines by Pakistan. Surely the much superior Tejas has been deployed in the LAC or LOC, right?
You actually brought up a very good point in your rebuttal. Where are Tejas currently stationed right now? For a supposedly crappy junk heap the JF-17, closest analogue to Tejas, has been deployed to the frontlines by Pakistan. Surely the much superior Tejas has been deployed in the LAC or LOC, right?
Do we know how many flight hours a year IAF pilots get? No matter how good the hardware if the training isn't adequate then your procurement budget will just get wasted.
Remember these facts are not the same facts chandra believes in. In India there is freedom of belief, as long as u believe it must be true and is a fact.
China's definition of aircraft generations define J20 as 4th gen, because we started at gen 1.
India started designing in gen 5, that's why Chandra is wrong, Tejas is actually gen 6 like I said earlier. It is so stealthy, it is invisible to the naked eye. India already have 500 Tejas on each of their aircraft carriers, since the plane is so small. And have 100000 for the air force. And according to Chandra, India perfected everything there is to perfect, so no further improvements needed. Also, it is so perfect, so the most perfect people can see them, such undermench such as u and I can't see them, invisible see.
Tejas is a 4th generation fighter jet and it's not invisible to the naked eye it's clearly visible
India has one or two Naval LCA on aircraft carrier used as testbed look at this image of hot refuelling of Tejas on INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov)
40 MK1 variants are in service and 83 MK1A has been ordered at the cost of 48,000cr INR (6.5 billion USD)
It's by far the biggest order of fighter jets in entire history of Indian airforce (Single biggest order)
Much bigger than Rafale deal or Su30MKI deal
Now IAF is considering repeat order of Tejas MK1A
Remember the Tejas MK2 which is under development will have higher Payload carrying capacity bigger size and yet much smaller RCS ranging between 0.1 to 0.2 meter square it will replace Mirage 2000 , Jaguars and Mig29 like Tejas MK1 is replacing Mig21
Do we know how many flight hours a year IAF pilots get? No matter how good the hardware if the training isn't adequate then your procurement budget will just get wasted.
There is no technical problem in fitting enough fuel internally into a light fighter provided that's the aim of the design. Fuel is quite dense, and it isn't really shape-restricted as long as the fuel system allows it.
Drop tanks on top of that are a positive bonus - they're net positive (they buy you more range than drag cuts into it)...though I'd expect significant maneuvering restrictions for a light fighter with anything other than the smaller centerline supersonic tank.
Other forms of external payloads, however, eat proportionally into light fighters' range, kinetic and maneuvering capabilities.
It affects both 'heavy' (A2G) and 'light' (A2A) loads.
