India’s Light Combat Aircraft: What does the future have in store?

[Zarvan]

The Tejas Mk 1 had delivered an agile performance at Aero India 2017 last February. The smallest combat aircraft in its class, it keeps costs down and its small size contributes to its agility — a vital capability for an interceptor. It can turn circles around other larger and less agile aircraft.

However, there is a flip side to its small size. It adversely affects Tejas’ payload and range performance. Thus, in a ground attack role, its performance is, at best, mediocre. It will be able to deliver fewer weapons, and over shorter ranges than any other combat aircraft.

An aerospace industry analyst had once said that the Saab Gripen is about the smallest aircraft that can undertake ground attack as well as air interception missions adequately — a multi-role aircraft. Clearly, Tejas will not do well as a multi-role aircraft. It will be best as a point defence — and not even an area defence — interceptor.

Remember the IAF’s Folland Gnat? It was the smallest combat aircraft of its day to enter service. It could carry little armament beyond its two 30 mm Aden cannon. However, its astonishing agility made it known as the “Sabre Slayer”

Some time back, India had demonstrated two Tejas Mk 1s at the Bahrain air show. Sri Lanka and Egypt were said to have “shown interest.” That is where things rest.

Frankly, that was predictable. It is not even to fourth-generation technology standards, and has a mediocre performance.

By contrast, the Tejas two-seat trainer is almost unique as a supersonic advanced jet trainer and has little competition. Also, it is much less affected by Tejas’ poor payload and range performance. Most air forces in the region have some supersonic fighter aircraft, but the two-seat “type trainer” variant of those fighters are horrendously expensive for conversion training.

Air forces worldwide try to transfer as much training as possible to less expensive aircraft. As an example, the very expensive US F-22s and F-35s do not have two-seat trainer variants. Their pilots are trained on smaller and much less expensive T-38s.

A flyaway cost of only about $20 million has been quoted for the Tejas Mk 1. (Around $100 million for the F-35). Clearly, the trainer will be much cheaper. Also, because of its very small size, its operating and life-cycle costs will be very competitive. It could be a winner in the export market. However, it needs to be developed more vigorously.

Another development merits comment. A globally-respected French company has offered to upgrade the Kaveri engine to meet the requirements of Tejas. It had been earlier rejected due to performance deficiencies. On the face of it, it sounds attractive — an Indian combat aircraft with an Indian engine.

Not really. The current General Electric F404-IN20 may be a dated design, but has proved to be very rugged and reliable. Also, it is in widespread global use and will thus continue in production for many years. Beyond that, the IN20 variant is the most powerful one in service. Additionally, export customers will prefer an aircraft with a well-tried and reliable engine from a globally respected manufacturer. It is best to continue with the F404 and not to get too adventurous.

The Indian Navy had, in a very public announcement on Navy Day, confirmed the dropping of the Naval variant of Tejas Mk 1, which was grossly overweight. That, combined with the basic aircraft’s poor payload/range performance, would have made it unsuitable for carrier-based operations. The Navy should be allowed instead to wait for the Tejas Mk 2 variant, which should be a superior aircraft.

The author is a defence industry analyst

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/co...ft-what-does-the-future-have-in-store-2438450

 

[NirmalKrish]

The Tejas Mk 1 had delivered an agile performance at Aero India 2017 last February. The smallest combat aircraft in its class, it keeps costs down and its small size contributes to its agility — a vital capability for an interceptor. It can turn circles around other larger and less agile aircraft.

However, there is a flip side to its small size. It adversely affects Tejas’ payload and range performance. Thus, in a ground attack role, its performance is, at best, mediocre. It will be able to deliver fewer weapons, and over shorter ranges than any other combat aircraft.

An aerospace industry analyst had once said that the Saab Gripen is about the smallest aircraft that can undertake ground attack as well as air interception missions adequately — a multi-role aircraft. Clearly, Tejas will not do well as a multi-role aircraft. It will be best as a point defence — and not even an area defence — interceptor.

Remember the IAF’s Folland Gnat? It was the smallest combat aircraft of its day to enter service. It could carry little armament beyond its two 30 mm Aden cannon. However, its astonishing agility made it known as the “Sabre Slayer”

Some time back, India had demonstrated two Tejas Mk 1s at the Bahrain air show. Sri Lanka and Egypt were said to have “shown interest.” That is where things rest.

Frankly, that was predictable. It is not even to fourth-generation technology standards, and has a mediocre performance.

By contrast, the Tejas two-seat trainer is almost unique as a supersonic advanced jet trainer and has little competition. Also, it is much less affected by Tejas’ poor payload and range performance. Most air forces in the region have some supersonic fighter aircraft, but the two-seat “type trainer” variant of those fighters are horrendously expensive for conversion training.

Air forces worldwide try to transfer as much training as possible to less expensive aircraft. As an example, the very expensive US F-22s and F-35s do not have two-seat trainer variants. Their pilots are trained on smaller and much less expensive T-38s.

A flyaway cost of only about $20 million has been quoted for the Tejas Mk 1. (Around $100 million for the F-35). Clearly, the trainer will be much cheaper. Also, because of its very small size, its operating and life-cycle costs will be very competitive. It could be a winner in the export market. However, it needs to be developed more vigorously.

Another development merits comment. A globally-respected French company has offered to upgrade the Kaveri engine to meet the requirements of Tejas. It had been earlier rejected due to performance deficiencies. On the face of it, it sounds attractive — an Indian combat aircraft with an Indian engine.

Not really. The current General Electric F404-IN20 may be a dated design, but has proved to be very rugged and reliable. Also, it is in widespread global use and will thus continue in production for many years. Beyond that, the IN20 variant is the most powerful one in service. Additionally, export customers will prefer an aircraft with a well-tried and reliable engine from a globally respected manufacturer. It is best to continue with the F404 and not to get too adventurous.

The Indian Navy had, in a very public announcement on Navy Day, confirmed the dropping of the Naval variant of Tejas Mk 1, which was grossly overweight. That, combined with the basic aircraft’s poor payload/range performance, would have made it unsuitable for carrier-based operations. The Navy should be allowed instead to wait for the Tejas Mk 2 variant, which should be a superior aircraft.

The author is a defence industry analyst

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/co...ft-what-does-the-future-have-in-store-2438450

@Nilgiri @Levina @Roybot @StraightShooter @Rajaraja Chola someones excited!

 

[MULUBJA]

Tejas is a stepping stone to highly advance planes which is going to start from MK1+ and Mk2 and AMCA. This is the finest thing which has happened to Indian defense sector.

 

[NirmalKrish]

Tejas is a stepping stone to highly advance planes which is going to start from MK1+ and Mk2 and AMCA. This is the finest thing which has happened to Indian defense sector.

Nah nah we all know that, that is why there is a dedicated thread to it. I was talking about the Op being super excited on initial issues that was worked on with the initial prototype's. Oh well what ever floats their boat.

 

[Maler]

One more paid promotion for SAAB Gripen. Why SAAB is so desperate for Indian market???

 

[khanmubashir]

The Tejas Mk 1 had delivered an agile performance at Aero India 2017 last February. The smallest combat aircraft in its class, it keeps costs down and its small size contributes to its agility — a vital capability for an interceptor. It can turn circles around other larger and less agile aircraft.

However, there is a flip side to its small size. It adversely affects Tejas’ payload and range performance. Thus, in a ground attack role, its performance is, at best, mediocre. It will be able to deliver fewer weapons, and over shorter ranges than any other combat aircraft.

An aerospace industry analyst had once said that the Saab Gripen is about the smallest aircraft that can undertake ground attack as well as air interception missions adequately — a multi-role aircraft. Clearly, Tejas will not do well as a multi-role aircraft. It will be best as a point defence — and not even an area defence — interceptor.

Remember the IAF’s Folland Gnat? It was the smallest combat aircraft of its day to enter service. It could carry little armament beyond its two 30 mm Aden cannon. However, its astonishing agility made it known as the “Sabre Slayer”

Some time back, India had demonstrated two Tejas Mk 1s at the Bahrain air show. Sri Lanka and Egypt were said to have “shown interest.” That is where things rest.

Frankly, that was predictable. It is not even to fourth-generation technology standards, and has a mediocre performance.

By contrast, the Tejas two-seat trainer is almost unique as a supersonic advanced jet trainer and has little competition. Also, it is much less affected by Tejas’ poor payload and range performance. Most air forces in the region have some supersonic fighter aircraft, but the two-seat “type trainer” variant of those fighters are horrendously expensive for conversion training.

Air forces worldwide try to transfer as much training as possible to less expensive aircraft. As an example, the very expensive US F-22s and F-35s do not have two-seat trainer variants. Their pilots are trained on smaller and much less expensive T-38s.

A flyaway cost of only about $20 million has been quoted for the Tejas Mk 1. (Around $100 million for the F-35). Clearly, the trainer will be much cheaper. Also, because of its very small size, its operating and life-cycle costs will be very competitive. It could be a winner in the export market. However, it needs to be developed more vigorously.

Another development merits comment. A globally-respected French company has offered to upgrade the Kaveri engine to meet the requirements of Tejas. It had been earlier rejected due to performance deficiencies. On the face of it, it sounds attractive — an Indian combat aircraft with an Indian engine.

Not really. The current General Electric F404-IN20 may be a dated design, but has proved to be very rugged and reliable. Also, it is in widespread global use and will thus continue in production for many years. Beyond that, the IN20 variant is the most powerful one in service. Additionally, export customers will prefer an aircraft with a well-tried and reliable engine from a globally respected manufacturer. It is best to continue with the F404 and not to get too adventurous.

The Indian Navy had, in a very public announcement on Navy Day, confirmed the dropping of the Naval variant of Tejas Mk 1, which was grossly overweight. That, combined with the basic aircraft’s poor payload/range performance, would have made it unsuitable for carrier-based operations. The Navy should be allowed instead to wait for the Tejas Mk 2 variant, which should be a superior aircraft.

The author is a defence industry analyst

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/co...ft-what-does-the-future-have-in-store-2438450

The Tejas Mk 1 had delivered an agile performance at Aero India 2017 last February. The smallest combat aircraft in its class, it keeps costs down and its small size contributes to its agility — a vital capability for an interceptor. It can turn circles around other larger and less agile aircraft.

However, there is a flip side to its small size. It adversely affects Tejas’ payload and range performance. Thus, in a ground attack role, its performance is, at best, mediocre. It will be able to deliver fewer weapons, and over shorter ranges than any other combat aircraft.

An aerospace industry analyst had once said that the Saab Gripen is about the smallest aircraft that can undertake ground attack as well as air interception missions adequately — a multi-role aircraft. Clearly, Tejas will not do well as a multi-role aircraft. It will be best as a point defence — and not even an area defence — interceptor.

Remember the IAF’s Folland Gnat? It was the smallest combat aircraft of its day to enter service. It could carry little armament beyond its two 30 mm Aden cannon. However, its astonishing agility made it known as the “Sabre Slayer”

Some time back, India had demonstrated two Tejas Mk 1s at the Bahrain air show. Sri Lanka and Egypt were said to have “shown interest.” That is where things rest.

Frankly, that was predictable. It is not even to fourth-generation technology standards, and has a mediocre performance.

By contrast, the Tejas two-seat trainer is almost unique as a supersonic advanced jet trainer and has little competition. Also, it is much less affected by Tejas’ poor payload and range performance. Most air forces in the region have some supersonic fighter aircraft, but the two-seat “type trainer” variant of those fighters are horrendously expensive for conversion training.

Air forces worldwide try to transfer as much training as possible to less expensive aircraft. As an example, the very expensive US F-22s and F-35s do not have two-seat trainer variants. Their pilots are trained on smaller and much less expensive T-38s.

A flyaway cost of only about $20 million has been quoted for the Tejas Mk 1. (Around $100 million for the F-35). Clearly, the trainer will be much cheaper. Also, because of its very small size, its operating and life-cycle costs will be very competitive. It could be a winner in the export market. However, it needs to be developed more vigorously.

Another development merits comment. A globally-respected French company has offered to upgrade the Kaveri engine to meet the requirements of Tejas. It had been earlier rejected due to performance deficiencies. On the face of it, it sounds attractive — an Indian combat aircraft with an Indian engine.

Not really. The current General Electric F404-IN20 may be a dated design, but has proved to be very rugged and reliable. Also, it is in widespread global use and will thus continue in production for many years. Beyond that, the IN20 variant is the most powerful one in service. Additionally, export customers will prefer an aircraft with a well-tried and reliable engine from a globally respected manufacturer. It is best to continue with the F404 and not to get too adventurous.

The Indian Navy had, in a very public announcement on Navy Day, confirmed the dropping of the Naval variant of Tejas Mk 1, which was grossly overweight. That, combined with the basic aircraft’s poor payload/range performance, would have made it unsuitable for carrier-based operations. The Navy should be allowed instead to wait for the Tejas Mk 2 variant, which should be a superior aircraft.

The author is a defence industry analyst

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/co...ft-what-does-the-future-have-in-store-2438450

Museum :p

 

[GURU DUTT]

One more paid promotion for SAAB Gripen. Why SAAB is so desperate for Indian market???

cause if it does not gets an big order of say some 6-8 full squads with spares for life cycle odrder from india it will not make a profit to invest in next 5th gen project and after its brajil and south farican deal fiasco it has no other choice but indian air force

but after NaMo coming to power and indian new found friendship with USA and latest deals with LM chances are very bright that india might go for deal with buying and upgrading second hand Blk40-42 USAF F16 into Blk70/72-version "V"(new wide new gen landing gear + new gen turbofan engine + GaN AESA based radar & EW+ECM+Jammersuite+100-150terabyte central computing DATABUS + F35 type next gen JHMDS & internal FLIRST & LDTP and a pair of CFT with inbuilt IFR probe )

in short the F16 Blk70/72 will be able to trach & engage more the a dozen ariel and ground targets any given time at ranges over a 100-120 miles and could carry almost twice the weapons load to twice the range than a Grippen NG in a single sortie but at the same price the why would india buy Grippen NG when also USA gives much much better "other polictical and trade benfits" which swedes cant ever ewen dream of

@Nilgiri @Levina @Roybot @StraightShooter @Rajaraja Chola someones excited!

rather they should be least botherred about it as its last of their worries but looks like their prime concern is there egos and self baravado as LCA is last line of air copmbat a so called "point defnce fighter" a "goal keeper" if air defnce was a soccer match cause their main problems on hand are MKI and Jaguar and M2K-Mig29 combo and Rafale and F16 combo in future