See this link for a news report which states that ACM was refferring to the Tejas Mk2 when he called it a Mig-21++……………

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/lca-to-be-an-advanced-version-of-mig-21-iaf-chief_679747.html

Nope, he didn’t mention the Tejas Mk2. The journo inserted the Mk2 into his statement. He was referring to the Tejas Mk1

Shortly after two Tejases roared into the sky for a quick flight display, Naik went on to describe the Tejas as a “MiG-21++” fighter, and went on to say, “At present it is not a fourth generation aircraft. It will come up, but at present it is not.” He also indicated that the Tejas Mk-II would not only be powered by the F414 engine, but would incorporate airframe design changes and newer avionics.

link

Would those be the forward laser warning sensor as seen here ?

If yes, then where would the rearward and downward LWS be ?

No, those must be the IFF antennae.

No argument is better than the sources used…

But i used several so it should check out.
Tejas 2458kg http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2011/feb%202011%20.pdf
Gripen… of course unofficial source for the 4000kg http://jas39gripen.blogspot.se/ Max fuel according to SAAB is 7 tonnes… including external stores. That sort of throws out the 6tonne figure.

Based on your numbers (that actually fell pretty accurate) the NG or E version should have 4150 litres of fuel.

I should stop hunting numbers in the middle of the night, things get messed up when i do.

Now you’re comparing the Tejas Mk1 (which is analogous to the Gripen A/B/C/D) to the Gripen E..

The Gripen NG carries more fuel than the C/D and that is a well known fact. Look for figures on how much fuel the C/D variant carries internally. With an empty weight close to that of the Tejas Mk1, it cannot possibly carry much more fuel internally!

The Tejas Mk2 will also carry additional fuel since it is being lengthened, but it may not carry as much internally as the Gripen E..Aero India 2013 may hopefully shed enough light on the final configuration of the Tejas Mk2.

I read what is written by others with interest.

Ultimately IAF has to be confident in Tejas Mk2 capability. As I understand it, Tejas Mk1 – due to its shortcomings – is to be stationed in an area where it is unlikely to ever see combat. Is there a very good chance of Mk2 being sufficiently capable to be seen as a genuinely useful asset by IAF?

no Spitfire, its being stationed at Sulur AFS because of its proximity to Bangalore, where ADA and HAL are based. That will help in the initial stages when the ground crew and maintenance crew will need a lot of assistance and hand holding by HAL personnel. Later on, as experience with the type will build, the Tejas Mk1 will replace MiG-21 Bison squadrons, most of which are based at forward air bases.

Besides, there are plans to even base Su-30MKIs at some Southern Air Command bases. That should make it clear that basing any fighter in the south doesn’t indicate that they’re not combat worthy.

The result is a hugely delayed and over budget product with the delay especialy having an adverse impact on its percieved capability.

Actually, the Tejas program is still ON budget, despite the canards that some media spread about it being over budget. Additional funding has only been provided for the Mk2 variant and the N-LCA variant, both of which entail substantial changes from the IAF’s Mk1 variant.

Slamming some recent media reports that the Tejas was enormously over budget (e.g. Times of India, 21st Nov 2010, “At Rs 17k cr, Tejas cost zooms 3000%”) Subramanyam reveals that just Rs 6,051 crore have been spent so far on the fighter that performed aerobatics at the Aero India show in Bangalore this month. Another Rs 746 crore (of the sanctioned Rs 3,650 crore) has been spent on the naval Tejas, which will fly from the Indian Navy’s future aircraft carriers.

ADA has provided a detailed cost breakdown. The LCA project began in 1983 (the name Tejas only came later) with a preliminary allocation of Rs 560 crore for “feasibility studies and project definition”. Subramanyam complains that accusations of cost overruns stem from the misperception that Rs 560 crore was the entire budget for developing the Tejas. In fact, this was merely for defining the project and creating the infrastructure needed for designing, building, testing and certifying a fighter.

Only after a decade of infrastructure building did the design work start, when the MoD sanctioned Rs 2188 crore in 1993 (which included the initial Rs 560 crore). This allocation was to fund the building of two “technology demonstrator” Tejas fighters.

“Within this budget we flew the Tejas in 2001, and even built two extra Tejas prototypes”, says Subramanyam. “And that was without any adjustment for inflation or foreign exchange appreciation, though the dollar shot up from 26 rupees to 47 rupees during that period. Our forex component of Rs 873 crore should have been adjusted to Rs 1642 crore.”

Buoyed by the Tejas’ successful test flight in 2001, the MoD allocated ADA Rs 3302 crore in Nov 2001 for Phase 2 of the programme. This was to fund a production line and the building and flight-testing of 8 “limited series production” fighters. Phase 2 will run till 2012, when the Tejas obtains final operational clearance (FOC) for induction into the IAF as a frontline fighter.
…

link to article

To add to all this – the IAF (at least) has its priorities right, it will always pick on time capability over indigenous content. And it has the cash to buy top of the line on time capability. Hence the less than flattering comments from the IAF Cheif calling the Tejas (mark 2 I believe!) a ‘ Mig21++’. All of this leaves what could easily have been a promising fighter in a very bad place. Biggest shame of it is that one mistake does not seem to be enough. Having messed up the IAF version, the same idiots have turned their attention to the Naval version.

The IAF initially wanted a MiG-21 replacement that did just about what the MiG-21 did, but slowly kept adding requirements that built up the LCA as much more than just that. While the scientific establishment did take on a lot, the LCA’s scope has grown quite a bit from the original requirements. The slipping deadlines have contributed to that, but also the IAF’s changing requirements.

the former ACM was referring to the Tejas Mk1 as a MiG-21++..which is fair, that’s 2 generations apart from the MiG-21, even though the punch and capability leap of the Tejas makes a comparison quite awkward. the ACM himself stated that a one-to-one replacement of the MiG-21 is not needed since modern jets perform many more roles and far better, than the MiG-21s did.

The original goal was to replace the MiG-21s in service, and if an affordable replacement that is 2 generations ahead is provided to the IAF, they should be quite satisfied. the IAF wants 44 squadrons of fighters, but will struggle to be able to afford so many if they’re only MKIs, Rafales and FGFAs. Already we’ve seen a drop in the number of FGFAs to 144 from the original 214. An affordable Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 are essential to be able to get there.

Calling those who’ve worked on the Tejas program as ‘idiots’ is uncalled for. What they have managed to do is to nearly succeed in bridging a 3 decade gap between India’s aerospace industry and that of the aerospace powers. That has implications for a host of other programs that India couldn’t have dreamed of if the Tejas program didn’t exist. Even the contributions to the MKI program were offshoots from the LCA program, and the Jaguar DARIN-3 and MiG-27UPG upgrade all built on the avionics programs from the LCA. License building equipment sourced from other nations wouldn’t have allowed that to happen, or the scope would’ve been a lot lesser. What the LCA program has done is to build an entire aerospace eco-system, consisting of private companies that build parts and avionics to the spec that DRDO labs provide. Without an indigenous program, that wouldn’t have happened either. There is still scope for more, but what’s been done is nothing to be scoffed at either. Typically, those who do scoff at what’s been done are pretty much ignorant of just how much has actually been done.

As for the genesis of the N-LCA, the IN was approached if they’d be interested in a naval variant of the Tejas and they agreed. There was no arm twisting nor was it foisted upon them.

And truth be told, the IN has in fact provided all support for the naval variant with Rs.900 crore funding already provided for their first 6 N-LCAs, test pilots being deputed to the program and naval officials being closely associated with it as well. They’re currently developing infrastructure to test the N-LCA as INS Hansa, an IN base (link). They’d do nothing of that sort if they didn’t back the program.

And while a naval squadron commander accept that the N-LCA is no Rafale (the interview was posted on this forum a while ago), they state that the N-LCA is ‘their baby’ and can be upgraded throughout its life within the nation and is being designed as per their own requirements, something you cannot ask for from a foreign design without paying a large fee. Crucially for them as well, being the first naval fighter designed and developed within India, the knowhow will be invaluable if they do decide to develop a naval-AMCA variant. That’s knowledge and importantly, experience that no amount of money will buy from a foreign design house.

Tejas is just a failed political project to build up an industry. Its basically a fighter from the 70s with modern materials. Considering the design its similar to Mirage III and Viggen (except for the canards).

* If they where to get the Gripen they would most likely get to build it themselves = know how in manufacturing for future systems (the purpose of Tejas).
* SAAB, as always, would offer them all the know how thats needed to alter the design and make a unique Indian version. A Naval Gripen E with F414EPE has been discussed, and that could become an Indian version.
* Open architecture for weapons integration (since the critical systems are separated from wepon controls etc. This makes it easier to implement custom specific systems like new pods, apps and weapons.
…oh, and they would get one of the best modern fighters money can buy. Lets say they build teh Gripen EI as a joint development with Sweden and with most R&D and all production in India? It would probably feel good for India to develop and build a high class fighter in 5-10 years when Tejas has been a project since 1969 with finalized designphase in 1975… with flying prototypes since 2001. I say just drop it and do it right the next time. 30 years ago Tejas would be a close contender to Mirage III and Draken, but today?

The offer to Brazil is similar. If they say yes then Brazil will manufacture all Gripens sold in Latin America. That is both a great business offset AND a great way to give them know how.

EDIT: Gripen A took 15 years from decision to introduction (delays included) and 9 years from first flight to introduction. Tejas has taken 32 years from decision to flying prototype and is expected (if there wont be more delays) to enter service 12 years after flight tests. That is a total of 44 years… unless there are more delays.
The price is already fixed. SAAB usually delivers on time and with the agreed price tag, in this specific case the Swedish taxpayers will take any possible additional costs. My guess is that SAAB will make a small profit from this and a larger profit from the deal with Sweden.

what a load of c**p !

all the timelines you’ve stated are utter rubbish. The project itself was cleared only in 1983 and at that time, even the ASRs hadn’t been defined and even ADA hadn’t been established. But looking at your post, its clear that you’ve done no real research and posting the REAL timelines won’t make any difference to you.

The Swiss chose Gripen for obvious reasons and it’s unfounded to claim it’s expensive.

It cost Switzerland $3.2 billion to buy 22 Gripen Es that will only being to be delivered from 2018 onwards. That works out to $145 million each, which are very high for a single engined medium weight fighter, even if they’re total program costs divided by the units acquired..That isn’t expensive? 😮

The Tejas is an agile airframe when its FBW is ok and it has a reliable engine. The similar Mirage 2000 is not outdated and has nothing to the Chinese or Pakistani can field. The yardstick for the Tejas are the Thunder and the F-16 at the low to medium height level. A HMS, high-agility AAM and EW-suit for the Tejas will allow its Indian pilots to face every opponent in combination with a sound mission planning. 😎

And what makes anyone say that its not agile? The ASRs were laid down with the Mirage-2000 in mind and pilots have claimed that the Tejas is actually easier to fly. Its ITR is already as high as that of a Mirage-2000 and its only in the STR regime that the specs were not met as yet and the Mk2 will aim to address that. The FBW is a work in progress and will reach full maturity when the platform achieves FoC. FWIW, the Tejas FBW was considered to be such that even the F-16 VISTA that flew with LCA FBW software actually performed better with it in some flight regimes, than with the F-16’s own FBW, a comment that irked some LM gentlemen.

To call it outdated is utter rubbish, when its avionics and weapons systems are on par with other 4th generation fighters that don’t yet have AESA. It has HMDS that even some 4th generation fighters don’t have.