HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

[longewala]

What does the price really mean?

It means that we can buy a large number of modern jets, with specifications close to that of advanced M2K versions, a top of the range israeli radar, top of the range engine, composite low RCS and manoverable airframe, for a very affordable cost.

Which also means that the IAF will be able to field say 200+ LCA for the western front without spending much money (much less than half of the Rafale deal) that, along with 100+ upgraded M29 and M2K, would be enough to ensure air superiority.

As far as whether it performs up to expectations - thats the positive of living in a country where the military doesn't rule, and has a free press. It HAS to be good enough, or else it won't be allowed in otherwise. That's why it took so long, otherwise DRDO could just take a obsolete all-metal non-FBW airframe, with a cheap radar and engine, and the IAF would accept it because a military-ruled country would be too arrogant to accept their plane could be inferior.

 

[MilSpec]

Well, its not impossible to stack these fighters up.. what is impossible is objectivity in doing so. An Indian cannot accept that the Tejas is lacking is some sphere while the Pakistani will refuse to accept ridiculous comments on the JF-17. Perhaps someone who has had a chance to look at both fighters up close and know them(say a aviation reporter) could offer the best comments. Ive only seen the former up close and gained an inkling to what its capable of .. so my comments can only be as accurate as I know. On the other hand, there is little in terms of publications on the JF-17 due to primarily piss poor digital marketing and rather abstruse ideals of the Pakistani military in information dissemination.

You stack the F-15 and Su-27 up.. you do the same with the mig-29 and F-16. Unless you have someone who's had say five flights in similarly configured, similar generation(F-16A, Mig-29A.. or F-16-52, Mig-29SM etc) .. you cannot guarantee objectivity by one person. You need to have multiple accounts, through reliable researched sources and not every other blog writing halfwit who was logistic branch of the Army and decides to comment on mountain warfare as if he is the authority on the subject.
Similarly.. ask an American pilot what he thinks of the Mig-29 vs F-16.. and he will tell you that his F-16 cant be beaten. The Rafale M did a tour on the US carrier.. and American pilots were asked of it.. they praised it..but when it came to asking about trading the fighter.. they refused.."I love my superhornet wayy too much". Debate .. me , @sancho ,@sandy_3126 try to do(i sincerely hope so ) on an objective level and that of mutual trust.. i.e. I trust what they are saying is taken as true to the best of their knowledge.. and hope the same from me. But that is important for objective discussion.. if that is there, then you dont need links, sources or news or copy paste blogs to ruin a discussion.



Why is India only purchasing 200 Tejas? Why not the whole fleet? why Buy MKIs or Rafales? Give me an educated answer to that and not a jingoistic one.

I am quite bored of the topic, thus I have grown reluctant on any active discussion on aforementioned comparison.... eventually all of these threads turn out to be the same.... some sparks of good posts marred by jingoistic twerking of the rest of the bunch....

 

[SQ8]

Both have almost same range... Also Tejas can carry ONE TON extra fuel... How????
According to IDEAS 2012 JF17 spec,,,,
Empty weight= 6,586 kg (14,520 lb),Max. takeoff weight: 12,383kg (27,300 lb), Max payload=3580kg(7900lbs)....
So fuel~~12383-(6586+3580)= 2217L(kg~l)
According to ADA lca Final brochure.....
Empty=6560kg,Max take off=13500kg, External payload=3500-3700kg...
So fuel~~13500-(6560+3500)=3440L

That is 3440-2217~~1200L extra.......

Same empty wt but one ton extra max take off wt.. with almost same power engine... Now say which airframe is advanced?????

Please dont confuse your litres with KG.. it makes you look hasty Less intellectual and more out to score ego points.
Now. So, lets get to two points. First.. does the Tejas carry more internal fuel?

According to the PAC official website.. Total internal fuel for JF-17 :

• Total internal fuel 5130 lb (3000 liters)... in KG 2326 kg

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra - JF-17 Thunder Aircraft

From the Official Tejas webiste..and brochure. Empty weight of Tejas: 6560kg, Clean takeoff weight(only internal fuel and pilot):9800kg. Est fuel capacity then is approx 3240kg.
http://www.tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf

Hence,from these numbers and guesstimates the tejas carries approx 900kg more internal fuel. In liters(assuming equal density of JP-4 and some basic cross multiplication)..the Tejas carries 1100 liters more fuel...but then the Ge-404 burns more fuel than the Rd-93 at similar levels.

Well, if one is to look at the DRDO website(unless we think DRDO is a stupid resource to get data from).. It agrees with the Tejas.gov.in (ADA website) of empty takeoff weight and max takeoff weight figures but it states internal fuel capacity of the Tejas at 2458kg(3170 liters).. now that is a shocker. Not only is the brochure more detailed, its not that old and yet it states a lesser fuel capacity than I estimated. What is the Tejas doing with the 780kg? Well, that depends on how the clean takeoff weight was calculated.. was it calculated with a clean bird with nothing hanging off it or was it calculated with empty pylons and wingtip A2A missiles? That is a mystery only ADA knows.
Just in case you worry about the link.. its right here.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2011/feb 2011 .pdf

So, suddenly.. DRDO disagrees with your assessment on the fuel capacity... and I for one am lost as well as to how there is no explanation for the missing 780kg of usable weight.@sancho

Second, Does the Tejas carry more payload..
Well, the following is a screen shot of a video available of the Designer of the JF-17(A Mr. Ma I believe) giving a briefing during the previous Dubai Airshow on the JF-17. Now, unless you want to call the man who designed the aircraft a liar.. I'd take his word for it.

Yet, I dont trust the presentation myself.. so I decided to add another one from a PAC banner.

So the value for carrying weapons comes out to 3500kg. .. So.. Nope.. the Tejas doesnt carry more weapons for sure.


Which means that neither of your assertions has been proven .. and your quick happy(inaccurate) conclusion is as true as a smile from a girl that is not interested in you.

Till then, go search around.. read Guptas and Shuklas.. or some other tom, dick and harry source.. and try again.

I am quite bored of the topic, thus I have grown reluctant on any active discussion on aforementioned comparison.... eventually all of these threads turn out to be the same.... some sparks of good posts marred by jingoistic twerking of the rest of the bunch....

The only fun I get out of it is banning(from the thread) some repetitive parrots. I imagine they must get really frustrated having all those "expert" opinions ready to paste to assuage themselves and not being able to do so.. only being able to watch.

Also, my last post.. what is the mystery with the missing 780kg if the DRDO data is accurate?

 

[sancho]

It means that we can buy a large number of modern jets, with specifications close to that of advanced M2K versions

Wrong, because the MK1 is inferior to the Mirage 2000-5 wrt flight performance, weapon loads and the weapon pack itself, which is why I said, the price doesn't tell you anything about the performance!

We also can't procure large numbers, since it will take us even years to get the first 40 and the order of 188 including Mk2s and prototypes is planned till 2022 (if there are no further delays in the production, induction or development of the MK2), that alone should make clear, that we can't procure huge numbers of the fighter in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact reason, why we wanted a part of the Migs to be replaced by a proven and ready foreign fighter, because it could had been produce earlier, or as it now is planned at the same time as LCA.

It HAS to be good enough, or else it won't be allowed in otherwise.

But good enough for induction at the low end of IAF and to replace Mig 21s in basic A2A and A2G roles, doesn't make it good enough to not buy a medium combat aircraft, that is on all level far superior to LCA, not to forget that it doesn't get us the industrial benefits in return that we get through MMRCA.
Again, the numbers alone doesn't cut it, you have to look at the whole picture to understand what we get in return for our money. IF MoD just wanted another fighter, they had gone with IAFs request for more Mirage 2000-5s, after the initial MRCA competition, but there was more to gain, benefits that we couldn't get through LCA developments, or further MKI.

 

[kingdurgaking]

What source?

Don't you remember when indian aircrafts crossed into Pakistani borders after 2008 incident?

Those Aircrafts were Su-30MKI (FULLY-LOADED) and Mirage 2000-9s etc...PAF's F-16s and F-7Ps took to the skies to defend our airspace..The incusions happened in two sectors...Lahore and Azad Kashmir..

Over Lahore sector, Pakistani Aircrafts got a solid "lock" on an indian Su-30MKI...

Some senior members here, who are "professionals" with links inside military, have even seen the video recorded by PAF fighter's cam...with Su-30MKI firmly "locked" in PAF's F-16's target sight...and "beeeepppppppp" of lock can be heard too...lol

Su-30MKI was later "allowed to leave" Pakistani Airspace while being "locked" by F-16s all the way to border

indian senior members here have also confirmed this...but according to their version, Su-30MKIs had high-tech equipment on board and they "wanted" to get locked by PAF to see what kind of radars PAF was using, to pick up electrical signals etc, and how alert PAF was (reaction time to interception etc)...

All that detail you won't find in newspaper...only thing you'll find is that indian fighters entered Pakistani Airspace but were forced to leave once PAF arrived...but what happened that night was a bit more interesting than that.

According to some newspaper reports, Later, General Kiyani showed the picture of indian aircraft in PAF's "lock" to General Mike Mullen, and remarked "Next time, we'll bring it down" to send clear message to indians not to enter Pak''s airspace again....which they "obeyed" I'm not sure how authentic this is though...Ask any senior member to confirm if it actually happened..The Mullen episode that is...but indians getting locked by PAF over Lahore sector is a confirmed deal...

And remember, this was the time when we had no latest F-16s and 0 JF-17..

Now, we have one of THE most sophisticated and high-tech fighter aircrafts, F-16 block 52+, along with 50+ BVR loaded JF-17 Thunders..backed by AWACS and ECM Aircrafts, integrated in 100% network-centric war-time central command..something indians lag behind us as of now.

Breaking through Pakistan's Air Defenses would be an uphill marathon task for iaf!

I really cant buy this news...as MKI is known for jamming and the same is confirmed in Red Flag..

 

[SQ8]

I really cant buy this news...as MKI is known for jamming and the same is confirmed in Red Flag..

It has to be confirmed if the Jamming was fully operational jamming(unlikely for the IAF to reveal that in red flag) or simulated via ACMI simulation pods. That being said, the MKI does have a VERY effective ECM suite and it would take a very smart radar alone.. or a well connected radar system to try and match it.

 

[kingdurgaking]

It has to be confirmed if the Jamming was fully operational jamming(unlikely for the IAF to reveal that in red flag) or simulated via ACMI simulation pods. That being said, the MKI does have a VERY effective ECM suite and it would take a very smart radar alone.. or a well connected radar system to try and match it.

As per his post... it was a radar lock from F-16.. so i would buy this way... either it deliberately allowed F-16 to take a lock or it was a Photoshop work .. I am not saying MKI is invisible.. because it was shot many times from ground based radar in Red Flag... but from F-15 and F-16 yes it did jamming and the pilot said they could only take the advantage of drag in the close fight.. he admitted candidly F-16 and 15 would be beaten consistently once the younger pilots learn how to fly

 

[SQ8]

As per his post... it was a radar lock from F-16.. so i would buy this way... either it deliberately allowed F-16 to take a lock or it was a Photoshop work .. I am not saying MKI is invisible.. because it was shot many times from ground based radar in Red Flag... but from F-15 and F-16 yes it did jamming and the pilot said they could only take the advantage of drag in the close fight.. he admitted candidly F-16 and 15 would be beaten consistently once the younger pilots learn how to fly

Oh yes.. the known and yet unknown 2008 intrusion incident. Well, the story I head first hand source was that the intruders were picked up.. tailed all the way till Kharian.. and then turned back. What was the motive, the plan.. lock, no lock.. is all conjecture.

 

[sancho]

and I for one am lost as well as to how there is no explanation for the missing 780kg of usable weight.@sancho

Some say pilot weight + all necessary liquids + ammo for the gun + the 2 x WVR missiles that the LCA usually carries in al flights (2 x R73 + pylons), but we have no official confirmation about that. That however would actually work against the term "clean" take off weight that is mentioned.
Some say, that it would include all pylons but without the payloads added, which I find hard to believe, since it doesn't make sense to add all pylons unless you know that they would be needed in the next flight and that it also depends on the mission profile what kind of pylon would be used (one for a bomb, one of a missile?).

Since it's not unusual to evaluate the speed, range, weights or size of a fighter with (wingtip) missiles, I say they included them in the clean take off weight, while "loaded" weight should be the better term.

 

[SQ8]

Some say pilot weight + all necessary liquids + ammo for the gun + the 2 x WVR missiles that the LCA usually carries in al flights (2 x R73 + pylons), but we have no official confirmation about that. That however would actually work against the term "clean" take off weight that is mentioned.
Some say, that it would include all pylons but without the payloads added, which I find hard to believe, since it doesn't make sense to add all pylons unless you know that they would be needed in the next flight and that it also depends on the mission profile what kind of pylon would be used (one for a bomb, one of a missile?).

Since it's not unusual to evaluate the speed, range, weights or size of a fighter with (wingtip) missiles, I say they included them in the clean take off weight, while "loaded" weight should be the better term.

Well, the reason I mentioned it was the DRDO publication quoting that figure. Or did the do the same job of quick copy paste?
3000L makes sense for a fighter that size.. but the clean takeoff weight leaves a mystery. Did they quote the weight of the test Tejas with some 600kg of instrumentation equipment or a LSP??

 

[sancho]

Well, the reason I mentioned it was the DRDO publication quoting that figure. Or did the do the same job of quick copy paste?

But they also mention the 9800Kg CTOW and the numbers they gave actually add up:

13300Kg MTOW - 9800Kg CTOW = 3500Kg external payload

Just as they say in the brochure and like ADA confirms as well, the fact that MK2 needs more fuel capacity also speaks against the fact that the 782Kg would include additional internal fuel, but is the weight for other weights and I have seen older HAL specboards where the 2458Kg internal fuel were given as well, although I generally don't trust HAL specs.

Did they quote the weight of the test Tejas with some 600kg of instrumentation equipment or a LSP??

Even in the last ADA brochure, the emptyweight is given with 6560Kg, same as on the gov.in website, ADAs own website and DRDOs brochures, which is why I think that figure is the given for the MK1 production version, without test equipment. If it would include the test equipment, the other numbers wouldn't add up anymore, since the emptyweight would be lower, the payload and MTOW higher.

Can you give us the same example for the JF17? What is the clean take off weight, or what is the take off weight of it with wingtip missiles?

 

[Superboy]

JF-17 empty weight is 14,520 lb, loaded weight is 20,062 lb.

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speaking of which, JF-17 chief engineer claimed DSI reduced empty weight by about 50 kg, roughly the difference between JF-17 empty weight and Gripen empty weight.

 

[MilSpec]

The only fun I get out of it is banning(from the thread) some repetitive parrots. I imagine they must get really frustrated having all those "expert" opinions ready to paste to assuage themselves and not being able to do so.. only being able to watch.

Also, my last post.. what is the mystery with the missing 780kg if the DRDO data is accurate?

I dont think the data by the drdo editorial committee is accurate, the the operational clean weight is 9800 minus the empty weight 6560 is 3240kg of internal fuel.... and not 2458 kg,

 

[shuntmaster]

Not sure about F404 but F414 engines cost us around $5 millions/unit.
India, US finalise Rs 3,000 crore deal for jet engines

3000 crores(roughly $500 millions) for 99 engines.

Around $ 6.18M for F-404 to be used in Tejas MK1 Contract date 2004
GE Awarded $105 Million Development Contract from India | Press Release

Around $ 8M for F-414 to be used in Tejas MK2

Conflicting reports. But safe to say the F404/F414 cost around $5-6million/piece. That makes the engine around 20-23% of the unit selling price of Tejas-Mk1. I used to believe the engines would be atleast 35-40% of the cost of these type of jet fighters.

Is there any breakdown of the component costs for the entire plane including avionics, structurals etc. ? My guess is HAL has a big profit margin on this plane..

 

[AUz]

If JF-17 is such a great aircraft then why do the chinese refuse to use it themselves?

Are you a retard or just trying too hard?

Why would a nation like China...with the doctrine like that of Chinese Air Force...would induct an multirole light combat aircraft ? Even when they have J-11s, J-10s, and now J-16s at their hand?

Here's something: U.S did not induct the F-16 Block 60 to USAF..and they will not!...can you make an argument "If it is such a good plane, then why USAF didn't induct it?" ...lol...

JF-17 is a brilliant plane for our needs and fits perfectly into our war-doctrine in context of the threats we face. It is the best plane in the world available for that price tag...It doesn't however means that it fit into the needs of Chinese or Russians or Americans too...

These air forces don't need multi-role light combat fighters....it doesn't fit into their war doctrine.